Too Much Froth

I couldn't even remotely hope to say it as well as do Joel Kotkin and Fred Siegel.

Like smokers seeking a cure from their deadly habits, city politicians and economic development officials have a long history of grasping at fads to solve their persistent problems and rebuild middle class cities.

But I think that they overstate the case.  For example, as an illustration that the "creative city" strategy is flawed they offer Seattle:

As for the others, they are no bargain either. Seattle has also lost jobs at a far faster rate than the rest of the country and has its own litany of social problems, including a sizable homeless population; the loss of its signature corporation, Boeing; and growing racial tensions.

I wouldn't worry too much about Seattle. For one thing, it has never had a "creative city" strategy, so it seems a bit odd to use it as an illustration that that strategy doesn't work. For another. I think that the economy is if not sizzling then still quite active; at least real estate and construction seems to be. The Boeing issue is a shibboleth: its corporate headquarters left for Chicago for strategic reasons having nothing to do with creatvity and everything to do with leverage over regional operating divisions, a more central location and because Chicago has better golf clubs for executives. And I have no idea what they mean by "growing racial tensions" -- we are certainly no worse than any other major city and probably a whole lot better. Such a shallow paragraph undercuts the credibility of the article.

That said, I heartily agree with the contention that municipal governments ought to ignore trendy economic development schemes like "creative cities" -- in fact they ought to ignore economic development altogether and get with the basics:

"...commonsense policies that stress basic services like police and firefighters, innovative public schools that are not beholden to teachers' unions, breaking down of barriers to new housing construction, and policies that lead local businesses to expand within the urban area."

I'd add quick, honest public administration of building permits, keeping the streets clean etc. I take for granted that a sensible government will enforce non-descrimination laws but as much for legal immigrants here 3 years as for Mayflower gays etc.)

What is missing from all these discussions is that the idea that a civic bureaucracy is even capable of encouraging creativity; having worked in one, I find the notion ludicrous. The best one can hope is that government gets out of the way, does its own basic job meticulously and allows a thousand flowers to bloom. (Or was it a thousand points of light to glow?) Whatever.

I hope the Democratic Party policy wonks are listening.

Via 2blowhards.

Comments

[Brian Miller]

In defense of "civic bureuacracies." In much of the National Automobile Slum (to paraphrase Kunstler) us boring ol' bureaucrats are the ONLY people thinking at all about urban form. Everyone else out here is just cranking out the stucco snout houses and the strip malls. Maybe that's all suburbia wants or needs, but the idea that only private business has "creativity" or vision is extreme. I guess I don't worship at the same altar of "free" enterprise.

Not that I disagree with most of your post. There is a lot of silliness out there. But such arcane rules are often desired by the population-who are often furious that, for example, we won't somehow prevent their neighbors from renting out a bedroom to a college student.