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.