June 11, 2005

FIRST, WE KILL ALL THE URBAN PLANNERS

The secret to a thriving city is not what you may think (Kim Campbell, Christian Science Monitor, June 8th, 2005)

When city officials contact urban expert Joel Kotkin for guidance on how to attract people to their locales, they often ask about things that make him cringe. Instead of improving schools or infrastructure, they want to construct performing arts centers and pump up cultural offerings to lure the artsy and the hip.

That's not the way to revitalize cities, argues Mr. Kotkin, author of "The City: A Global History." To him, attracting and keeping people in urban environments is less about projecting an image of "cool" and more about providing the basics that encourage and support a strong middle class: jobs, schools, churches.

Kotkin's skepticism about relying on cultural enticements - which is not shared by all urbanists - is informed in part by his latest work, which looks back at the evolution of cities.

"No urban civilization has flourished long without middle-class families," he says in a recent interview in New York. The key to keeping people interested in city living is the idea of upward mobility. "That aspiration is very critical to urban life, it's important to the social order that people feel they can go somewhere."

By looking at the history of the city, from its origins in the Middle East to today's metropolises, he's observed that as cities evolved, their health typically rested on three factors: "the sacredness of place, the ability to provide security and project power, and ... the animating role of commerce," he writes. He argues that to be successful, today's cities must still be places that are "sacred, safe, and busy."

Without the idea of sacred space, for example, it's unlikely cities anywhere could have existed, Kotkin suggests. Religious leaders not only set the calendars that organized life, they also helped groups of people who were not related learn how to get along together. In today's secular cities, it is financial and cultural buildings that dot skylines, and religion and moral cohesiveness are more muted, in part, he says, because families are increasingly less common in major cities. "Who's got time for babies?" he asks, arguing that the high cost of living and small apartments are contributing to low birthrates in some cities.

And then we move on to the family planners.

Posted by Peter Burnet at June 11, 2005 12:10 PM
Comments

Schools, they forgot the schools. When the city schools tip culturally, it's A-L-L O-V-E-R.

"Mom, Dad, get me out of that place--I'm scared all the time," and the city is finished. The writer didn't go there because he couldn't face the elephant in the parlor. I am sure he knows very well how schools are used to bust not just neighborhoods, but whole cities, by forcing families to pick up and leave.

Posted by: Lou Gots at June 11, 2005 12:28 PM

We lose many families in our neighborhood (Near North Chicago) to the North Shore when the kids start school. Who wants to pay for schools twice - $10k a year for private kindergarten on top of many thousands a year in property taxes?

Posted by: Rick T. at June 11, 2005 12:50 PM

Mr. Gots;

attracting and keeping people in urban environments is less about projecting an image of "cool" and more about providing the basics that encourage and support a strong middle class: jobs, schools, churches. [emphasis added]

That doesn't read as forgetting schools.

Posted by: Annoying Old Guy at June 11, 2005 12:57 PM

The 'artsy and the hip' don't want families around either so their advocates act at cross purposes compared with people who actually wish to build cities. San Francisco is their ideal. No kids. Lots of fruity restaurants and theatres.

Posted by: bart at June 11, 2005 1:24 PM

When do we get to the lawyers?

Posted by: pj at June 11, 2005 2:30 PM

Lots of fruity restaurants and theaters

And zoos, Bart. Don't forget the zoos.

Actually it's nice to see you back, I just couldn't resist.

Posted by: joe shropshire at June 11, 2005 3:20 PM

San Francisco is the petri dish experiment.

Posted by: Sandy P. at June 11, 2005 3:32 PM

Pj:

When do we get to the lawyers?

After the grief counsellors, organisational management consultants, spin doctors, environmental activists, post-traumatic stress consultants, indeed any other consultants you want to name, woman's empowerment experts, bullying experts, educational bureaucrats, alternative dispute resolution gurus, etc., etc.

Then, and only then, will we do our part.

Posted by: Peter B at June 11, 2005 6:51 PM

Peter,

Most of the above "experts" have lawyers to thank for their livelihood.

Posted by: Robert Duquette at June 11, 2005 9:46 PM

Robert:

As do just about all livelihoods. Funny thing about lawyers. Everybody hates and distrusts them and everbody is pleased and proud if their kid decides to be one.

Posted by: Peter B at June 12, 2005 7:57 AM

Not to mention that it would decimate the blogosphere.

Posted by: David Cohen at June 12, 2005 4:50 PM

The really annoying thing about cities hiring experts to attract people is that it's a zero-sum game. when you account for the resources used to draw up those plans, it's a negative-sum game.

Posted by: Tom at June 14, 2005 10:22 AM
« CLEAN SLATE: | Main | THEY LOOK LIKE LINE DRIVES IN THE BOX SCORE: »