Trendies vs. counter-trendies

When the The Volokh Conspiracy is against something, I start to get suspicious, not necessarily about the putative subject but about why the Volokhs are all of sudden just so concerned.

For instance, I haven't paid a whole of attention to Richard Florida because what he says is in some ways so obvious if you follow real estate, as I do. Obviously real estate investment follows artists. Those artists sniff out/are forced into well-located but under-valued areas and their presence makes the places safer and more interesting and more desirable for the rest of us slobs. It's obvious.

So when I hear certain people argue against those dynamics...For example:

Creative cities: do they grow more rapidly? Richard Florida, a Carnegie Mellon professor, has been arguing that cities must become trendy places to compete in the new economy. His book The Rise of the Creative Class has been a big hit. In his view a city should try to attract gays, bohemians, and ethnic minorities, all to lure creative workers. Those workers will in turn start innovative, fast-growing companies. To get entrepreneurial residents, Florida claims that cities should spend heavily on cultural amenities and adopt a progressive social stance.

Now I don't know the empirical facts about how one fosters economic development and if I did I doubt if you could afford to hire me; but my take on both sides is simple:

I just don't trust ulterior motives. i.e. doing something not for itself but for some secondary reaction -- some hit into the side-wall which will go into a side-pocket three caroms later. Too complex and risky for me.

Want to make your city nicer for people who live there?
Fabulous!
Want to make it nicer as part of some goofy economic development scheme?
Bad idea.

Comments

[Andrew Spicer]

I haven't read Florida either, but I think it is more of a case of making an argument than it is one of hoping for secondary effects.

People argue for policies that will improve the livability of their community, but often face resistance from forces that can't see the benefit and can only see the dollar cost. There are people out there who don't appreciate anything other than growing the economy. I think Florida's book reaches out to them by saying "all these things that we say improve livability also promote economic development".

It has become common to defend things with intrinsic value by refering to their economic impact. During the race for mayor of Toronto I attended a debate on "The Arts". Several of the candidates focused on the economic benefit of the arts as if this was the sole justification for supporting them. In fact, Richard Florida was mentioned in that debate. I think it is a tool of persuasion to get opponents on board.

[Chris]

There's an interesting article on Florida here:

http://www.city-journal.org/html/14_1_the_curse.html

The author's thesis is that the job-growth number in Florida's "least creative cities" was actually higher than those in the "most creative" ones, so Florida's thesis is completely wrong. Of course, this is a right-wing think-tank journal so there might be some fact-spinning going on here. But I'm alarmed at the alacrity that many cities have accepted Florida's work at face value and have begun to invest money to bring in gays, bohemians, and ethnic minorities.