Is it time for Memphis to start thinking about "Shrinking Smart" instead of Smart Growth? (Not that incessant annexation qualifies as Smart Growth.) Check out this post on Smart City Memphis and the accompanying USA Today piece.
I’m always happy to see Richmond get good press. (I started my career there as a neighborhood planner during the first few years of the Neighborhoods in Bloom program). The success of the Neighborhoods in Bloom program is due in large part to Richmond’s awesome network of community development corporations. And those CDCs are as effective as they are because of strong support from city government, which turns over the lion’s share of its federal CDBG and HOME funding to them. (Richmond also city also maximizes the effect of the funding by restricting it to use within six target neighborhoods, rather than scattering it among projects across the city.) I haven’t studied this closely, but I wonder if our CDC community gets the same kind of support? (From what I've heard, they don't.)
Friday, December 29, 2006
Monday, November 27, 2006
Economists, Global Warming, and Political Boxing
Here’s a link to Gregg Easterbrook’s Brookings report on the global warming debate, as mentioned in class last week. (http://www.brookings.edu/views/papers/easterbrook/20060517.pdf)
Easterbrook – a former global warming skeptic who is now convinced that the problem is real – argues that solutions to global warming (especially market-based solutions) may not be as expensive or economically detrimental as “conventional wisdom” might hold.
In related news, check out this column from Slate that talks about the growing potential for a carbon tax. (http://www.slate.com/id/2153390/nav/tap2/) Note the author’s dismay that a carbon tax debate won’t fit into the usual media-defined political boxes. Even libertarian could support it!?... Is that really so shocking?
By the way, is a libertarian a conservative?
Easterbrook – a former global warming skeptic who is now convinced that the problem is real – argues that solutions to global warming (especially market-based solutions) may not be as expensive or economically detrimental as “conventional wisdom” might hold.
In related news, check out this column from Slate that talks about the growing potential for a carbon tax. (http://www.slate.com/id/2153390/nav/tap2/) Note the author’s dismay that a carbon tax debate won’t fit into the usual media-defined political boxes. Even libertarian could support it!?... Is that really so shocking?
By the way, is a libertarian a conservative?
Sunday, November 26, 2006
What's Going to Happen to Peabody Place?
Memphis’ experiment in urban shopping and entertainment appears to be headed for difficult times. Within the last few weeks, two of Peabody Place’s most prominent tenants have announced plans to leave or downsize. First came the worst-kept secret in retail: Tower Records was bankrupt and would be closing its stores. Nationally, sales of compact discs have been lagging for years. The advent of the digital download has made the compact disc something of a relic, seemingly headed in the same direction as the eight-track.
Then, last week came an announcement from Muvico: It would close eight of its 22 Peabody Place theatre screens. Muvico’s struggles have been obvious, though the company has not acknowledged them previously. Earlier this year, Muvico announced that it was lowering ticket prices to $6.50, nearly $2.00 less than what its competitors charge for admission. Muvico blamed its screen closures on national trends, saying that movie receipts are down this year and have been trending downward for the better part of a decade. Yet, Muvico’s closure of 36 percent of its screens dwarfs the 14 percent decrease in film revenues during Muvico’s short existence in downtown Memphis.
Peabody Place began for a noble enough reason: to attract tourists. It was designed to compliment Beale Street and AutoZone Park and offer downtown visitors a chance to come inside from the heat, see a movie, have a drink, and spend some money in national chain stores. Yet, that very intention may have undermined the development. While downtown’s residential population continues to grow quickly, few necessary services can be found downtown. Residents complain of having to drive across a bridge to another state to shop for groceries and other necessities; Peabody Place offered no relief to those residents. Undoubtedly, many Memphians who live outside of downtown saw Peabody Place as just another tourist attraction and avoided it.
An additional concern is crime or the perception of crime. As early as 2002, a consultant hired by the Center City Commission indicated that the area surrounding Peabody Place, as well as Peabody Place itself, seemed engulfed in crime. The Thayer Report noted that gang activity was present at Jillian’s and that Muvico acted irresponsibly in selling tickets to late-night shows to minors in spite of a citywide curfew. While those problems may have been corrected, the loitering that began within and around Peabody Place shortly after its construction has continued. The community’s growing perception of Peabody Place as unsafe has certainly contributed to its decline.
The future of Peabody Place is up in the air. Issac Hayes’ bar and restaurant has already closed and reopened once. The parent company of Jillian’s filed bankruptcy two years ago. Tower Records is bankrupt and closing. Muvico is cutting back. Will Peabody Place turn into a shell of a mall like Raleigh Springs? Finding ways to fight crime and reaching out to downtown residents would be the first steps I would take in improving Peabody Place.
Then, last week came an announcement from Muvico: It would close eight of its 22 Peabody Place theatre screens. Muvico’s struggles have been obvious, though the company has not acknowledged them previously. Earlier this year, Muvico announced that it was lowering ticket prices to $6.50, nearly $2.00 less than what its competitors charge for admission. Muvico blamed its screen closures on national trends, saying that movie receipts are down this year and have been trending downward for the better part of a decade. Yet, Muvico’s closure of 36 percent of its screens dwarfs the 14 percent decrease in film revenues during Muvico’s short existence in downtown Memphis.
Peabody Place began for a noble enough reason: to attract tourists. It was designed to compliment Beale Street and AutoZone Park and offer downtown visitors a chance to come inside from the heat, see a movie, have a drink, and spend some money in national chain stores. Yet, that very intention may have undermined the development. While downtown’s residential population continues to grow quickly, few necessary services can be found downtown. Residents complain of having to drive across a bridge to another state to shop for groceries and other necessities; Peabody Place offered no relief to those residents. Undoubtedly, many Memphians who live outside of downtown saw Peabody Place as just another tourist attraction and avoided it.
An additional concern is crime or the perception of crime. As early as 2002, a consultant hired by the Center City Commission indicated that the area surrounding Peabody Place, as well as Peabody Place itself, seemed engulfed in crime. The Thayer Report noted that gang activity was present at Jillian’s and that Muvico acted irresponsibly in selling tickets to late-night shows to minors in spite of a citywide curfew. While those problems may have been corrected, the loitering that began within and around Peabody Place shortly after its construction has continued. The community’s growing perception of Peabody Place as unsafe has certainly contributed to its decline.
The future of Peabody Place is up in the air. Issac Hayes’ bar and restaurant has already closed and reopened once. The parent company of Jillian’s filed bankruptcy two years ago. Tower Records is bankrupt and closing. Muvico is cutting back. Will Peabody Place turn into a shell of a mall like Raleigh Springs? Finding ways to fight crime and reaching out to downtown residents would be the first steps I would take in improving Peabody Place.
Conventional Wisdom Strikes Out Again
Conventional wisdom holds that suburbs are great places to raise a family but lack the social capital found in more densely populated areas. As is the case with most conventional wisdom, the reasoning behind the premise that suburbs are bad for social interaction just makes sense. Conventional wisdom holds that development in the suburbs is designed in such a way that you don't have to interact with your neighbors. The houses are set back from the street so you can't easily converse with neighbors walking by. Conventional wisdom also holds that people don't walk in the suburbs. Due to the auto centric nature of the suburbs, residents go from their house to work and back without every having to interact with their neighbors. Conventional wisdom holds that urban areas provide more options for neighors to interact be it in local parks, public squares or just from the front porch.
This image of the isolated suburbs has found its way into the popular media. Both TV shows and movies portray the suburbs as seas of isolation where the characters struggle with the sense of anomie created by living there. In fact, the lack of social interaction is often sited as a negative externality created by sprawl and therefor a argument against sprawl. The conventional wisdom that suburbs is bad for social interaction also has some backing from the academic community. Robert Putnam in his book, Bowling Alone attributes some of the decrease in social capital found in America due to the growth of sprawling suburbs.
Well, a recent study found the exact opposite to be true. The study found that social activity actually increased as density decreased. This suggests that suburbs are better at building social capital than urban areas. It turns out suburbs aren't the cold, isolating placed they were once thought. When conventional wisdom is turned on its head, such as this study has done, it opens up the floor to debates as people now feel free to question commonly held beliefs about the subject. Hopefully this will lead to some fresh perspectives into the social dynamics of sprawl. I for one am interested to hear the debate that follows.
This image of the isolated suburbs has found its way into the popular media. Both TV shows and movies portray the suburbs as seas of isolation where the characters struggle with the sense of anomie created by living there. In fact, the lack of social interaction is often sited as a negative externality created by sprawl and therefor a argument against sprawl. The conventional wisdom that suburbs is bad for social interaction also has some backing from the academic community. Robert Putnam in his book, Bowling Alone attributes some of the decrease in social capital found in America due to the growth of sprawling suburbs.
Well, a recent study found the exact opposite to be true. The study found that social activity actually increased as density decreased. This suggests that suburbs are better at building social capital than urban areas. It turns out suburbs aren't the cold, isolating placed they were once thought. When conventional wisdom is turned on its head, such as this study has done, it opens up the floor to debates as people now feel free to question commonly held beliefs about the subject. Hopefully this will lead to some fresh perspectives into the social dynamics of sprawl. I for one am interested to hear the debate that follows.
Sunday, November 19, 2006
The Stern Report and Cities
On October 30 of this year the Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change was released. The team that wrote the report was headed by Sir Nicholas Stern, Head of the Government Economics Service and Chief Economist for the World Bank from 2000 to 2003. In the report the costs of global warming were weighed against the costs of mitigating the affects of global warming. In other words, the report the team sought to determine if fixing global warming made economic sense. Three different methods were used to determine the economic impact of global warming and all three found that "the benefits of strong, early action considerably outweigh the costs." In other words, fixing global warming is good for the global economy.
The report suggests that global warming "is the greatest and widest ranging market failure ever seen." While global warming will negatively affect the global economy, the effects will not be evenly distributed. Unfortunately those countries already struggling will be hardest hit. This is especially unfair since global warming is a phenomenon created by the richer industrialized countries of the world. This is just another instance of the poor getting poorer. While the poor will be hardest hit the developing nations will also be hurt by global warming. The report states that the effects of global warming will put the global economy into a depression similar to the one experienced in the 1920's.
So what does this all have to do with cities? Well, everything. Since the industrial revolution the economies of scale found in cities have produced sprawling metropolises. Most of greenhouse gas emissions produced in the last century can be linked to cities and their growth. Emissions from industry was the main sources of emissions at the start of the century, but soon the effects of cars and massive amount of energy needed to keep a city operating also began to have a toll on the global climate as well. Cities put a double whammy on the global climate by destroying habitats that helps to reduce greenhouse gases while also producing massive about of greenhouse gases at the same time.
The problem is not going to go away, no more than cities are going away. In fact more and more people are flocking to cities across the globe. So while the problem of global warming began and continues to be with modern cities the solution can be found in cities as well. Cities have to be part of the solution in order for any mitigation measures to work. This does not mean that cities must "bite the bullet" or "take one" for the global cause. There are a variety of ways in which cities can do their part in reducing their greenhouse emissions while also making the city a better place to live. Many of the newest urban design theories call for a return to more human scale, walkable development. These New Urbanist and sustainable design gurus suggest that new forms of development make social, economic and environmental sense. Many of these energy saving measures, such as public transit and more dense walkable neighborhoods, area also seen as amenities by young educated workers, seen by many to be the economic drivers of the new information based economy. So cities that address global warming can do so in a way that increased the overall quality of life for their residents. There is also plenty of money to be made in mitigation effort. Cities that are able create markets and encourage entrepreneurs creating solutions to global warming will be economic winners in the next century. Solving global warming makes economic sense for the global economy and for cities as well.
The report suggests that global warming "is the greatest and widest ranging market failure ever seen." While global warming will negatively affect the global economy, the effects will not be evenly distributed. Unfortunately those countries already struggling will be hardest hit. This is especially unfair since global warming is a phenomenon created by the richer industrialized countries of the world. This is just another instance of the poor getting poorer. While the poor will be hardest hit the developing nations will also be hurt by global warming. The report states that the effects of global warming will put the global economy into a depression similar to the one experienced in the 1920's.
So what does this all have to do with cities? Well, everything. Since the industrial revolution the economies of scale found in cities have produced sprawling metropolises. Most of greenhouse gas emissions produced in the last century can be linked to cities and their growth. Emissions from industry was the main sources of emissions at the start of the century, but soon the effects of cars and massive amount of energy needed to keep a city operating also began to have a toll on the global climate as well. Cities put a double whammy on the global climate by destroying habitats that helps to reduce greenhouse gases while also producing massive about of greenhouse gases at the same time.
The problem is not going to go away, no more than cities are going away. In fact more and more people are flocking to cities across the globe. So while the problem of global warming began and continues to be with modern cities the solution can be found in cities as well. Cities have to be part of the solution in order for any mitigation measures to work. This does not mean that cities must "bite the bullet" or "take one" for the global cause. There are a variety of ways in which cities can do their part in reducing their greenhouse emissions while also making the city a better place to live. Many of the newest urban design theories call for a return to more human scale, walkable development. These New Urbanist and sustainable design gurus suggest that new forms of development make social, economic and environmental sense. Many of these energy saving measures, such as public transit and more dense walkable neighborhoods, area also seen as amenities by young educated workers, seen by many to be the economic drivers of the new information based economy. So cities that address global warming can do so in a way that increased the overall quality of life for their residents. There is also plenty of money to be made in mitigation effort. Cities that are able create markets and encourage entrepreneurs creating solutions to global warming will be economic winners in the next century. Solving global warming makes economic sense for the global economy and for cities as well.
Sunday, November 12, 2006
El Sueno Americano (The American Dream)
The Commericial Appeal's Sunday cover story examined the ease with which illegal immigrants have been able to get mortgages.
(http://www.commercialappeal.com/mca/local/article/0,2845,MCA_25340_5137932,00.html)
Should we be concerned about this? I guess it depends, in part, on how you feel about illegal immigration -- not that I want to get into all that. Putting that aside for a moment, let's assume that there are legitmate reasons for our policies that encourage homeowenership in general (positive externalities). Do those benefits go away if the homeowners are not legal citizens?
(http://www.commercialappeal.com/mca/local/article/0,2845,MCA_25340_5137932,00.html)
Should we be concerned about this? I guess it depends, in part, on how you feel about illegal immigration -- not that I want to get into all that. Putting that aside for a moment, let's assume that there are legitmate reasons for our policies that encourage homeowenership in general (positive externalities). Do those benefits go away if the homeowners are not legal citizens?
Tuesday, October 24, 2006
Salvation? Maybe. Mercy? No.
An editorial in last week’s Memphis Flyer applauded a city attorney’s opinion that the City cannot hand over a portion of the Fairgrounds to the Salvation Army. Instead, according to the attorney, the land can be sold to the Salvation Army at market price, which is currently around $3 million. The Salvation Army, using a grant from the widow of McDonald’s founder Ray Kroc, wants to build a $20 million recreation and community services facility in Memphis; its choice location is one of the more attractive pieces of the Fairgrounds property – the East Parkway frontage between Fairview Junior High School and the old Libertyland site. The facility would represent a $72 million total investment: $48 million donated by the Kroc Foundation and $24 million raised by the Salvation Army in Memphis. The City, of course, envisions yet more housing at the Fairgrounds site; this in spite of the fact that without annexation, Memphis' population would continue its steady decline.
Besides the site location, the City is concerned with potential church-state conflicts. Lest we forget, the Salvation Army is a Christian organization, a church actually. Its roots are in Methodism, and it has a decidedly evangelical slant. Its leaders serve dual roles: they are both program administrators and clergy. Certainly, the City of Memphis should not be expected to provide public lands for churches. Besides the Constitutional concerns, there simply is not enough prime space to satisfy everyone; each religion or denomination would cry foul because another was given frontage space at a busy intersection.
Yet, if the Kroc Center does not get built, the community as a whole—regardless of religion—will lose. The same Memphis Flyer issue that praised the city attorney’s opinion includes an article about the rise of juvenile crime in Shelby County. The summer of 2006 was a disastrous one for teens in Memphis; the shutdown of Libertyland and the lack of a coordinated City summer job program left thousands of inner-city teens with little to do. A crime wave that lasted all summer left Memphis residents fearful for their safety and several teens injured or killed. A Kroc Center centrally located at the Fairgrounds would be accessible to teens in some of the least advantaged areas of Memphis via a single bus ride.
A quick glance at the homepage of the San Diego Kroc Center gives an idea of the kinds of services Memphians could expect from a Kroc Center here. Sports and arts programs, parenting classes, tutoring, child abuse prevention programs, and emergency food and housing assistance are among the services offered by the San Diego Kroc Center. Certainly, regardless of religious preference, we should all be able to agree that those services would benefit the Memphis community. Should we remind ourselves of the statistics? Memphis is second in the country in violent crime. Memphis has the highest infant mortality rate in Tennessee. Only 65 percent of Memphis City Schools students graduate high school.
Despite the good things the Kroc Center can do for Memphis and the City’s need for these things to be done, the question remains: Should a religious organization that provides much-needed services to the entire community be excluded from City programs that are designed to help the community? Until recently, the City has had little problem giving tax credits to for-profit companies that locate here, even though many offer only the slimmest promise of having a positive economic impact on the City. The Kroc Center, on the other hand, will undoubtedly have a positive effect for years to come on areas of Memphis where other development has all but stopped. What are those who oppose the Kroc Center on religious freedom grounds doing to raise up the Binghampton, Beltline, and Orange Mound communities? If the statistics are to be trusted, it is clear that few—save for a handful of dedicated community and religious leaders—are doing anything to help those communities. What is the greater good: the individual’s freedom or the community’s needs? This is a discussion that is worthy of more than an attorney’s solid-as-the-Gospel opinion.
Besides the site location, the City is concerned with potential church-state conflicts. Lest we forget, the Salvation Army is a Christian organization, a church actually. Its roots are in Methodism, and it has a decidedly evangelical slant. Its leaders serve dual roles: they are both program administrators and clergy. Certainly, the City of Memphis should not be expected to provide public lands for churches. Besides the Constitutional concerns, there simply is not enough prime space to satisfy everyone; each religion or denomination would cry foul because another was given frontage space at a busy intersection.
Yet, if the Kroc Center does not get built, the community as a whole—regardless of religion—will lose. The same Memphis Flyer issue that praised the city attorney’s opinion includes an article about the rise of juvenile crime in Shelby County. The summer of 2006 was a disastrous one for teens in Memphis; the shutdown of Libertyland and the lack of a coordinated City summer job program left thousands of inner-city teens with little to do. A crime wave that lasted all summer left Memphis residents fearful for their safety and several teens injured or killed. A Kroc Center centrally located at the Fairgrounds would be accessible to teens in some of the least advantaged areas of Memphis via a single bus ride.
A quick glance at the homepage of the San Diego Kroc Center gives an idea of the kinds of services Memphians could expect from a Kroc Center here. Sports and arts programs, parenting classes, tutoring, child abuse prevention programs, and emergency food and housing assistance are among the services offered by the San Diego Kroc Center. Certainly, regardless of religious preference, we should all be able to agree that those services would benefit the Memphis community. Should we remind ourselves of the statistics? Memphis is second in the country in violent crime. Memphis has the highest infant mortality rate in Tennessee. Only 65 percent of Memphis City Schools students graduate high school.
Despite the good things the Kroc Center can do for Memphis and the City’s need for these things to be done, the question remains: Should a religious organization that provides much-needed services to the entire community be excluded from City programs that are designed to help the community? Until recently, the City has had little problem giving tax credits to for-profit companies that locate here, even though many offer only the slimmest promise of having a positive economic impact on the City. The Kroc Center, on the other hand, will undoubtedly have a positive effect for years to come on areas of Memphis where other development has all but stopped. What are those who oppose the Kroc Center on religious freedom grounds doing to raise up the Binghampton, Beltline, and Orange Mound communities? If the statistics are to be trusted, it is clear that few—save for a handful of dedicated community and religious leaders—are doing anything to help those communities. What is the greater good: the individual’s freedom or the community’s needs? This is a discussion that is worthy of more than an attorney’s solid-as-the-Gospel opinion.
Friday, October 20, 2006
Don't Feed the Bears... I mean the homless
Good post, Emily. It's interesting to note the contrast between this recent post on Smart City Memphis, which calls from increased police attention to the city’s downtown vagrancy problem, and Otis White’s column, which argues that locking up sidewalk sleepers won’t solve the problem until cities first provide adequate options for shelter. (Of course, I guess one could argue that Memphis has provided adequate options, and it’s now time for a crackdown on those who are not taking the options.) This is a tricky problem because while it is hard not to view a “sweep up the homeless” campaign as part of an attempt to create a shiny tourist bubble (making the city look nice for outsiders while hiding our real problems), I can understand the frustration of the Smart City Memphis poster:
There’s more good discussion in the comments to the Smart City Memphis post.
We tried to be philosophical this year, but it’s just too hard when the problem
takes up residence on the front steps.So, don’t tell us in the posters
canvassing our neighborhood that we should “say yes to charities that help the
homeless and the needy.” We say yes to the charities but we also say yes to
dealing with the problem where it exists, in the alleys and sidewalks all over
downtown.
There’s more good discussion in the comments to the Smart City Memphis post.
Friday, October 06, 2006
Lunch Pails or Laptops
If you were the economic development director for a major US city, which list of cities would you want yours to emulate?
List A
San Francisco
Austin
Boston
Seattle
Portland
Houston
Raleigh-Durham
Washington
New York
Minneapolis-St Paul
List B
Riverside-San Bernardino
Camden
Ft. Lauderdale
Newark
Las Vegas
San Antonio
West Palm Beach
Orlando
Oklahoma City
Richmond-Petersburg
You would probably pick list A; and who could blame you? Who doesn’t want to be like Seattle, New York, Portland? If you haven’t guessed, list A consists of large metro areas that rank in the top 25 of Richard Florida’s Creativity Index. But what if I told you that list B is made up of places that ranked among the “top 25 cities for doing business” according to a recent study? (Yes, Camden.) And what if I also told you that the same study cited 5 of the cities from list A among the “10 worst metro areas?” Might you change your mind? (Of course, you’d probably want to see the study first. It was conducted by Joel Kotkin and David Friedman for Inc. Magazine. The rankings are based on current and historical job growth as well as balance among industries. You can find it here.)
This little exercise is intended to turn the creative class ideology – the idea that cities need to attract a certain breed of creative professionals to remain economically vital – on its head. Others have beaten me to it. In a City Journal article titled “The Curse of the Creative Class,” Steven Malanga points out that “since 1993, cities that score best on Florida’s analysis have actually grown no faster than the overall US economy, increasing their employment base by only slightly more than 17 percent. Florida’s indexes, in fact, are such poor predictors of economic performance that his top cities haven’t even outperformed his bottom ones. Led by big percentage gains in Las Vegas (the fastest-growing local economy in the nation) as wekk as in Oklahoma City and Memphis, Florida’s ten least creative cities turn out to be job powerhouses, adding more than 19 percent to their job totals since 1993 – faster growth even than the national economy.”
While I’m put off by Malanga’s sardonic tone – especially his use of “the professor” as a term of derision – his position is worth consideration. Both Malanga and Kotkin, one of Florida’s most vocal detractors, argue that traditional factors are more important ingredients of growth. Affordability tops the list – both in terms of cost of living (including real estate prices) and the costs of doing business (including tax burden).
Still, even if the job growth figures cited above cannot be refuted, I admit that it’s easier to swallow list A as a group of role model cities. And I assume others probably feel the same way. So, why are those cities are innately more appealing, in spite of credible evidence? There are lots of reasons, but perhaps intellectual elitism plays a role. We know that the cities in list A are places with lots of high tech workers and artists of all kinds, but the sources of job growth in the list B cities are unknown, probably very broad, and likely to include lots of regular blue-collar Bubbas. For those of us who study cities (and therefore think we know best) the term growth seems to mean a certain kind of growth – it means more laptops, not more lunch pails! Image is everything, and the list A cities surely have a better image.
Sticking with the theme of elitism, consider the following. When cities like Cincinnati start distributing public money through “cultural funds” to attract edgy arts groups and bohemian culture, how widely are the benefits spread among the population? When we reshape our urban landscape to create entertainment districts, condos, and apartments that appeal to a moving target of young creative types what impact does it have on the locational decision of traditional middle class families? And at what point do we go from real cities with soul to PotemkinVillages?
List A
San Francisco
Austin
Boston
Seattle
Portland
Houston
Raleigh-Durham
Washington
New York
Minneapolis-St Paul
List B
Riverside-San Bernardino
Camden
Ft. Lauderdale
Newark
Las Vegas
San Antonio
West Palm Beach
Orlando
Oklahoma City
Richmond-Petersburg
You would probably pick list A; and who could blame you? Who doesn’t want to be like Seattle, New York, Portland? If you haven’t guessed, list A consists of large metro areas that rank in the top 25 of Richard Florida’s Creativity Index. But what if I told you that list B is made up of places that ranked among the “top 25 cities for doing business” according to a recent study? (Yes, Camden.) And what if I also told you that the same study cited 5 of the cities from list A among the “10 worst metro areas?” Might you change your mind? (Of course, you’d probably want to see the study first. It was conducted by Joel Kotkin and David Friedman for Inc. Magazine. The rankings are based on current and historical job growth as well as balance among industries. You can find it here.)
This little exercise is intended to turn the creative class ideology – the idea that cities need to attract a certain breed of creative professionals to remain economically vital – on its head. Others have beaten me to it. In a City Journal article titled “The Curse of the Creative Class,” Steven Malanga points out that “since 1993, cities that score best on Florida’s analysis have actually grown no faster than the overall US economy, increasing their employment base by only slightly more than 17 percent. Florida’s indexes, in fact, are such poor predictors of economic performance that his top cities haven’t even outperformed his bottom ones. Led by big percentage gains in Las Vegas (the fastest-growing local economy in the nation) as wekk as in Oklahoma City and Memphis, Florida’s ten least creative cities turn out to be job powerhouses, adding more than 19 percent to their job totals since 1993 – faster growth even than the national economy.”
While I’m put off by Malanga’s sardonic tone – especially his use of “the professor” as a term of derision – his position is worth consideration. Both Malanga and Kotkin, one of Florida’s most vocal detractors, argue that traditional factors are more important ingredients of growth. Affordability tops the list – both in terms of cost of living (including real estate prices) and the costs of doing business (including tax burden).
Still, even if the job growth figures cited above cannot be refuted, I admit that it’s easier to swallow list A as a group of role model cities. And I assume others probably feel the same way. So, why are those cities are innately more appealing, in spite of credible evidence? There are lots of reasons, but perhaps intellectual elitism plays a role. We know that the cities in list A are places with lots of high tech workers and artists of all kinds, but the sources of job growth in the list B cities are unknown, probably very broad, and likely to include lots of regular blue-collar Bubbas. For those of us who study cities (and therefore think we know best) the term growth seems to mean a certain kind of growth – it means more laptops, not more lunch pails! Image is everything, and the list A cities surely have a better image.
Sticking with the theme of elitism, consider the following. When cities like Cincinnati start distributing public money through “cultural funds” to attract edgy arts groups and bohemian culture, how widely are the benefits spread among the population? When we reshape our urban landscape to create entertainment districts, condos, and apartments that appeal to a moving target of young creative types what impact does it have on the locational decision of traditional middle class families? And at what point do we go from real cities with soul to PotemkinVillages?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
