I was interviewing David Brooks yesterday about changing demographics of the cities and suburbs, and asked him how the emerging migration of suburbanites to urban neighborhoods, especially downtown cores, is likely to change our politics. He said that the economic bust has probably brought this demographic shift to a screeching halt. Turns out the urbanist Joel Kotkin supposes the same thing, saying that if cities want to survive this bust, they've got to quit obsessing over "creative class" gingerbread, and focus on providing unsexy bread-and-butter amenities for the middle class. Excerpt:
For a decade or more, city leaders have kept thinking that something from outside - demographic changes, high fuel prices or changing consumer tastes - would create a revival for them. This allowed them to avoid doing hard, nasty things like cutting often-outrageous public employee pensions, streamlining regulations, cutting taxes levied on businesses or improving often-dismal schools and basic infrastructure.Maybe the current downturn can be a wake-up call for city boosters. Overall, since 2000, the average job growth in cities has averaged less than one-sixth that of suburbs, according to research by my colleagues at the Praxis Strategy Group. This has been particularly notable in higher-paying blue collar positions in manufacturing and warehousing, but increasingly applies also to higher-end business services.
Cities should start realizing that their biggest problem is not a shortage of cultural venues and performance artists but a chronic lack of decent, middle class jobs. And to be sure, older cities do possess critical advantages such as already existing, if often tattered, transportation systems and the best strategic locations. Their old industrial districts possess an existing infrastructure and, in some cases, a residual pool of skilled labor and some decent job-training facilities. If properly prodded, local universities could also become part of the solution by seeding new entrepreneurial ventures.
But such a return to basics may be nullified by the prospect of an urban Democrat coming into the White House and a Congress dominated by the likes of Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Charles Rangel and Barney Frank. This will revive hope that largely suburban middle-class taxpayers will now bail out bloated city budgets and often-absurd projects (convention centers, stadia and associated nonsense).
Here in Dallas, the mayor and the city council are determined to put taxpayers on the hook to build a massively expensive convention center hotel -- this in a city where the hotel occupancy rate is fairly low. Happily, there's a grassroots campaign to put this question on the ballot -- and it's succeeding! We're going to stop this damn thing. If only it were remotely as easy to deal with our irreparably dysfunctional public school system.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
Don't kid yourselves. WE ALL must fear Barney Frank... :-)
I'm with you Krath, on NY. I live in CT and it's not much better over here. Yeah they aren't quite as corrupt (debatable) but they still take on completely frivolous projects. The ones they do complete, are always at least 2 years late and 10 million over budget.
I-84 from Waterbury to Hartford... they've repaved this 5 miles of highway like 6 times over the last decade - hopefully for the last time. When your state budget is facing a 300m deficit, you'd think you'd wisen up to the ridiculous contracts you gave to the governor's brother in law. Turns out he was a bad contractor and couldn't do the work :-) That's what you get when you shoot for the Lowest Cost Model.
How about the Appropriate Cost Model? All industrial America sees is the "bottom-line". Cheapest doesn't always mean best. Just ask your dog who eats food from China.
Not all cities are expensive re: taxes and real estate. (Yes for San Francisco and Chicago; not so much for St. Louis or Kansas City, MO.)
Most middle-class families are *not* going to send their children to inner-city public schools. Nor are they going to move somewhere relatively away from the sports teams, swimming pools, specialized classes (tutoring, SAT preparation) or extracurriculars (hockey, dance, gymnastics) considered so "necessary" for "the good life."
Good point above about city facilities being dominated by "dinks" and empty nesters; thus not that child-friendly.
Also, good point that inner-city blacks move out of inner cities as soon as they can; this has definitely been the case in St. Louis. However, I have to disagree that white middle-class people moved for "economic" rather than racial reasons. Here, the jobs followed the mass migration, not the other way around.
I think if we are talking about Greater Metropolitan Dallas-Fort Worth, some statistics are in order. Almost 35% of the wealth of Texas is is in the five county area of the North Texas Metroplex-i.e. Collin, Grayson, Denton, Tarrant and Dallas counties. (Collin, Grayson and Denton are to the north of downtown Dallas. Tarrant is comprised of Fort Worth and Arlington.) The wealth of our area is clearly to the north. And moving very quickly into the southern counties of Oklahoma. (Not there yet, but it is getting close.) All of this creates some very unusual cultural and demographic zones. Tarrant county still believes it is the economic equal of Dallas. The Fort Worth-Dallas rivalry goes back decades. The City of Dallas resents that the northern suburbs will not acknowledge their municipality as the economic hub of the metroplex. This is exacerbated by the fact that Collin, Denton, and soon, Grayson counties are comprised of a majority of populace not from Texas. These are people that have moved to the state from the Midwest and Northeast over the last three decades. (Commonly called "New Texans" or "Transplant Texans".) Add to this the rising political rivalry in the southern areas of Dallas and Tarrant counties between the African-American and burgeoning Hispanic population, you just have complete disunity in the Metroplex. With all of the above issues, is it surprising that urban planning is almost non-existent.
Well, if I were Kunstler, the answer would be a resounding "hell no!" or something even more profanity laden and doubtlessly full of colorful metaphors.
However, I think that Suburbia will be revealed to be more than just one monolithic kind of thing, mainly dependent on geography. There's suburbia and then there's Suburbia. Where I live is suburban in that it is a sub-urb (dependent city) of Everett, which itself is mainly dependent on Seattle. But the city I live in, population 4,000 or so has also been its own city for many decades. It was once a logging town, then a working man's vacation spot (the main feature is a lake) and now a bedroom community for the various bigger cities around. So you might say I live in a small town as well, in that, in former days it was somewhat self-sufficient (farmland is nearby) and could be again. Suburbs like mine will probably still be inhabited for a long time. I can walk from my house to city hall, the police station and so on.
Suburbia Proper however, like the housing developments that sprang up in canyons along the highways in northern San Diego county, built on what used to be grassy hills for cattle ranchers and with nothing about them but Mini Mall #323,409 and a highway offramp will probably not fare so well. These places were never real towns to begin with.
I think the original article is correct in that the bad economy will at least stop a lot of pointless building. One of four fast food joints in town burned down over the summer and hasn't been rebuilt. No one misses it. Suburbia will stop growing for the meantime. Our town has a lot of improved lots (cleared, utilities brought out, streets) with no houses. Probably these will stay empty for some time. Fortunately my town isn't large enough to afford real boondoggles (unless you count public school buildings and facilities); the main items on the city wishlist are more sidewalks so kids can walk to school.
Over in Everett, however, they have actively been pursuing "events" to bring tourism dollars to the city (and pay off the expensive Events Center), most recently the Skate America tour. There was disappointment that folks weren't spending as the city had promised and the restauranteurs had hoped. Guess what, even people that shell out a hundred dollars to watch ice skating now have to watch the budget like the rest of us. Hotel owners did okay. People have to sleep somewhere regardless.
Also there was some crazy plan going in one the nearby cities about the city subsidizing a Children's Theatre instead of a parking garage. Or was it a parking garage for the children's theatre? One of those classic things that cities struggling for cash really don't need to be involved in. "If we build it, it will give our city prestige!" Somehow I now doubt the theater will find even the weak support it had a year ago. Not that children's theater is a bad thing, just not something the city should be underwriting.
I'm from another area of the country: I've lived in both Cincinnati and Indianapolis. I see a very basic lack that city governments don't want to face--public safety. Large portions of the existing city populations are basically lawless, unless a cop is right on the spot. Giuliani was right in NYC; to get rid of the big crime, you've got to crack down on the little stuff as well. In too many cities, the justice system is broken--criminals not only getting off easy, but committing more crimes even while out on bail. It's hard enough to make most of those older buildings even halfway energy-efficient, without having to live in a fortress to feel halfway safe.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.