Election 2010 - The smackdown of cool cities

Joel Kotkin of New Geography is becoming one of my favorite demographic writers. He wrote a great piece on the elections titled "The Smackdown of the Creative Class". This was almost two years after he wrote The Triumph of the Creative Class on the Obama victory.

The "creative class" is the big new urbanist thesis from Richard Florida that spawned the "cool cities" talk from Granholm. I consider it a sad joke (big spending on fluff, smoking bans, pushing people to live in cities, trains to nowhere, etc) and worse, harmful to Michigan and our economy, as well as to the manufacturing industry as a whole.

Back in 2007, I wrote how people fled the cool cities that we have in Michigan.

Instead of cool cities, I think we need to have a cool economy here. One with jobs, low taxes, and high freedom. Leave the fluff and superficial stuff to private citizens.

The Argus had a big thing on this in April. which I followed up in May withJobs not fluff.

Joel Koktin's piece on the 08 election and creative class is much better than anything I can write on it.

These latter business interests provided much of the consistent and massive financial advantage that the Illinois senator has accrued since early spring. The term "creative class" was popularized by former George Mason professor Richard Florida, who used it to describe those with both brainy business acumen and a very liberal cultural agenda borrowed from the bohemians of the '60s.

Florida, whose views have affected urban policymakers over the last several years, has attributed these characteristics to upward of 30% of the workforce, basing his figures largely on education. On close examination, suggests Brookings Institution demographer Bill Frey, the "cultural creatives" at the core of Florida's formulation represent likely no more than 5% of the population. After all, most college-educated workers live in suburbs, have children and even attend conservative churches.

In contrast, the narrower "creative" group clusters heavily in the very areas--college towns, urban centers, some elite suburbs--where Obama has done exceedingly well from early on in the campaign. Nearly one quarter of the core "creative group," those working in the arts and culture industries, live in just two cities, New York and Los Angeles.

Many of these workers are employed by a far smaller, and more influential, base of largely pro-Obama corporate and financial titans who embrace the Florida view that "creativity" can save the U.S. economy. These include the likes of Eric Schmidt, CEO of Google--whose employees contributed over $400,000 to Obama's campaign--as well as a who's who of other Silicon Valley oligarchs.

Obama has also enjoyed almost lock-step support in Hollywood and among the go-go wing on Wall Street. Hedge-fund managers, for example, gave 77% of their contributions in congressional races to Democrats last year, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan analyst of campaign finances. George Soros, the peculiarly left-leaning financial speculator, has been a long-time financial supporter and a critical ally in terms of funding pro-Obama media.

When you hear conservatives rip "elitists" or what I call "self proclaimed elite", these are the people that they usually refer to. Besides the sneering, snobbishness, and culture clash, this is why I am extremely opposed to their agendas and want them as far away as possible from power.

the creative class establishment rallied to different political causes and candidates, including Gary Hart's 1984 presidential campaign and the causes of other so-called "Atari Democrats." Yet it is only this year that its members have, like the Skynet computer system in the Terminator series, reached a level of consciousness about their potential true power.

What will this ascendancy mean in economic terms? Since the creative class deals largely with images, ideas and transactions, it's not likely to focus much on reviving the tangible parts of the economy: manufacturing, logistics, traditional energy and agribusiness.

On the other hand, the creatives are unlikely to be protectionist since they represent companies whose growth markets, and often suppliers, are located overseas. Heavily counted among the world's richest people, they are also likely to support some Bushite policies--like low interest rates and financial bailouts--that prop up their stock prices and drive money to Wall Street.

The biggest difference between the creative class and the old business types isn't on cultural issues--few traditional CEOs embraced the religious right's agenda--but on environmental policy. Executives at places like Apple, as well as opportunistic investment firms, have become enthusiastic jihadis in the war against climate change. Conveniently, their companies don't tend to be huge energy consumers and, if they make products, do so in largely unregulated facilities in China or elsewhere in the developing world. And youthful financial firms looking for the next "bubble" could benefit hugely from mandates for more solar, wind and other alternative fuels.

Outsourcers, opposed to manufacturing, hypocrisy, pro-bailout, and more restrictions on freedoms. If they kept to their bubble, I'd have less of a problem, but what they push for puts Michigan out of business.

All this could prove very bad news for groups that produce tangible products in the U.S. or that, like large agribusiness firms, are big consumers of carbon. Also threatened will be anyone who builds the suburban communities--notably single-family houses and malls--that most Americans still prefer but that Gore and his acolytes dismiss as too energy-intensive, not to mention in bad taste.

Theoretically, there is opportunity for the Republicans--if they can somehow jettison the more primitive parts of their social agenda and come up with their own bold, environmentally sound energy agenda. The new hegemons could easily be painted as moralistic hypocrites who live the carbon-heavy luxury lifestyle of the super-rich while demanding ordinary Americans give up their cars, homes and even their jobs.

Yet given the creative class' increasing domination of the media, and the inability of the GOP to comprehend the changing world around it, such a counterstroke may be years in coming.

He was right, except it was only two years in coming. Real America had enough of those clowns and smacked them down. The more those sneer and call them teabaggers and the like, the more they will be smacked down.

Kotkin's writings are usually good reads, as well as most that comes out of New Geography. They understand that what is important to economies are the meat and potatoes issues, and not so called cool cities.

Looks like the Richard Floridas and New Urbanists are wrong

Another strong argument is made against the New Urbanists in the latest from "New Geography." The Myth of the Back-to-the-City Migration.

One of the reasons I always bring back this topic is because so many of the bad points of the most influential leftists rear their head here.

Remember Granholm's Cool Cities? This is what he was referring to. Richard Florida's thesis. It's not working, but it's still being pushed,
even here in Livingston County. The real key to attracting workers is simple. Work. Right now of the cities, Houston is king.

Are people moving back to the city? Nope. From New Geography

Pundits, planners and urban visionaries—citing everything from changing demographics, soaring energy prices, the rise of the so-called "creative class," and the need to battle global warming—have been predicting for years that America's love affair with the suburbs will soon be over. Their voices have grown louder since the onset of the housing crisis. Suburban neighborhoods, as the Atlantic magazine put it in March 2008, would morph into "the new slums" as people trek back to dense urban spaces.

But the great migration back to the city hasn't occurred.

That's obvious. The census numbers keep showing that with one or two exceptions like New York.

Housing prices in and around the nation's urban cores is clear evidence that the back-to-the-city movement is wishful thinking. Despite cheerleading from individuals such as University of Toronto Professor Richard Florida, and Carole Coletta, president of CEOs for Cities and the Urban Land Institute, this movement has crashed in ways that match—and in some cases exceed—the losses suffered in suburban and even exurban locations. Condos in particular are a bellwether: Downtown areas, stuffed with new condos, have suffered some of the worst housing busts in the nation.

One of the big pushes to these overpriced downtown lofts, apartments, and condos is "walkability". The drawback is cost for the space, no land, more rules and regulations, city crime, parking, and for families, usually bad schools. Now some people are cityfolk, and I don't have any problem with that whatsoever. I prefer small towns and the country. My dream house is 20 acres of woods and an average house where I can go hunting. That's my preference. Live and let live. My problem is when the so called "progressive" crowd wants to force everyone to move to one room lofts in cities, in the name of global warming. I have a problem wasting money when a small portion of elites want this train to nowhere, subsidized by tax money.

There's more.

The story in downtown Las Vegas is massive overbuilding and vacancies. The Review Journal recently reported a nearly 21-year supply of unsold condominium units. MGM City Center developer Larry Murren stated this spring that he wished he had built half as many units. Mr. Murren cites a seminar on mixed-use development—a commonplace event in many cities over the past few years—as sparking his overenthusiasm. He's not the only developer who has admitted being misled.

Behind the condo bust is a simple error: people's stated preferences. Virtually every survey of opinion, including a 2004 poll co-sponsored by Smart Growth America, a group dedicated to promoting urban density, found that roughly 13% of Americans prefer to live in an urban environment while 33% prefer suburbs, and another 18% like exurbs. These patterns have been fairly consistent over the last several decades.

Demographic trends, including an oft-predicted tsunami of Baby Boom "empty nesters" to urban cores, have been misread. True, some wealthy individuals have moved to downtown lofts. But roughly three quarters of retirees in the first bloc of retiring baby boomers are sticking pretty close to the suburbs, where the vast majority now reside. Those that do migrate, notes University of Arizona Urban Planning Professor Sandi Rosenbloom, tend to head further out into the suburban periphery. "Everybody in this business wants to talk about the odd person who moves downtown, but it's basically a 'man bites dog story,'" she says. "Most retire in place."

Even Vegas, and that actually does qualify as a cool city. The trends are accurate, although I prefer country to suburb or exurb. My own experience sees this. Most of the empty nesters I know, still stayed in their homes. Why move? This is where their roots are.

What about these "young professionals" we all hear about for the past 10 years.

What about the "millennials"—the generation born after 1983? Research by analysts Morley Winograd and Mike Hais, authors of the ground-breaking "Millennial Makeover," indicates this group is even more suburban-centric than their boomer parents. Urban areas do exercise great allure to well-educated younger people, particularly in their 20s and early 30s. But what about when they marry and have families, as four in five intend? A recent survey of millennials by Frank Magid and Associates, a major survey research firm, found that although roughly 18% consider the city "an ideal place to live," some 43% envision the suburbs as their preferred long-term destination.

Same as it ever was. Party in the city, but when it's time to settle down, different priorities take over. A well told word of caution is given.

The condo bust should provide a cautionary tale for developers, planners and the urban political class, particularly those political "progressives" who favor using regulatory and fiscal tools to promote urban densification. It is simply delusional to try forcing a market beyond proven demand.

Rather than ignore consumer choice, cities and suburbs need to focus on basic tasks like creating jobs, improving schools, developing cultural amenities and promoting public safety. It is these more mundane steps—not utopian theory or regulatory diktats—that ultimately make successful communities.

This sounds familiar. Jobs not fluff. Crime not lofts. Schools not rails. It's the meat and potatoes issues which are important if cities want to make comebacks, not Richard Florida's template.

Jobs not fluff.

Back in April, I wrote a piece ripping the new urbanist "cool cities" style of BS that bureaucrats and ivory towers think is the key for Michigan comeback. I stand by what I wrote in both the article and comments section and revisit it in the light of recent articles in New Geography.

In today's recession, and specifically to Michigan, there's a lot of talk about keeping younger workers here, and so called "diversifying the economy," which too often means abandoning manufacturing in favor of so called "cool-cities." To the Granholmites, it's "coolness" and "hipness" and not actual jobs that attract young workers. My post in April was Michigan specific on this matter. New Geography gave its own model city. It's not New York, Boston, Seattle, Chicago, or San Francisco. Houston. I can't speak for recent history with Houston as it has been over 20 years since I've been there. Joel Kotkin, who I believe is actually a democrat (more of an old school one who doesn't support cap and trade or Richard Florida style of urbanism), makes an interesting case for Houston, if one can handle the weather.

So what does Houston have that these other cities lack? Opportunity. Between 2000 and 2009 Houston's employment grew by 260,000. Greater New York City--with nearly three times the population of Houston--has added only 96,000 jobs. The Chicago area has lost 258,000 jobs, San Francisco 217,000, Los Angeles 168,000 and Boston 100,004.

Politicians in big cities talk about jobs, but by keeping taxes, fees and regulatory barriers high they discourage the creation of jobs, at least in the private sector. A business in San Francisco or Los Angeles never knows what bizarre new cost will be imposed by city hall. In New York or Boston you can thrive as a nonprofit executive, high-end consultant or financier, but if you are the owner of a business that wants to grow you're out of luck.

Houston, however, has kept the cost of government low while investing in ports, airports, roads, transit and schools. A person or business moving there gets an immediate raise through lower taxes and cheaper real estate. Houston just works better at nurturing jobs.

It starts with jobs, regulations, and costs, with the rest going to meat and potatoes issues of competence. Jobs and growing economies also attract college educated, much more than BS fluff that dominate the news these days.

Some traditional urbanists will concede these facts but then try to shift the focus to "qualitative" factors: the best-educated residents, the highest salaries, the most expensive real estate. Although it also attracts a large number of low-skill migrants, Houston has considerably expanded its white-collar workforce. According to the Praxis Strategy Group, Houston's ranks of college-educated residents grew 13% between 2005 and 2008. That's about on par with "creative class" capital Portland, Ore. and well more than twice the rate for New York, San Francisco or Los Angeles.

Back to Livingston County, I'll say the same thing about Houston as I said about the "cool cities". We're Livingston County. We aren't Chicago. We aren't Royal Oak. We aren't Ann Arbor. We won't copy them, and should not even try to do so. We don't need to be any of those. Livingston County's strength is rural character, small towns, lakes, and being driving distance from cities, but further away from its influence.

However, we need to study what makes Houston work in this economy compared to what isn't working in Chicago, San Francisco, LA, and Boston, and adapt it to fit in Michigan, and Livingston County.

Jobs will fix this economy, not "cool cities".

Cool Cities being pushed (forget new urbanism, the key is jobs)

In today's Argus,there was a big hoopla about an economic summit that was in the county, and it sounds like the same ole song and dance was being bantered about there. The headline read that "Experts say Livingston County must focus on marketing existing strengths." I agree with the headline, but I didn't see a lot of that in this article. I saw the Richard Florida koolaid being drunk again. Remember Granholm's Cool Cities?

After graduating from college, Jon Porta returned to Livingston County because he could work for his father, who owned an independent insurance agency.

If he hadn't had a job lined up, Porta wonders if his future would have taken a vastly different path.

"I don't know if I would have come back to Livingston (County)," Porta said.

That's the answer right there. It's not new urbanism. It's not trying to be something we aren't and never will be. It's jobs. We're Michigan. We're Livingston County. We aren't Chicago. We aren't Royal Oak. We aren't Ann Arbor. We won't copy them, and should not even try to do so. We don't need to be any of those. Livingston County's strength is rural character, small towns, lakes, and being driving distance from cities, but further away from its influence.

He said the state's old economy based on automotive manufacturing that fueled Michigan's amazing growth is gone and isn't coming back.

Gilmartin said the new group of college graduates aren't sticking around in Michigan because they're looking for a lively, multicultural urban scene. He said 46 percent leave the state after graduating.

"They don't see the urban opportunities here in Michigan, and they're gone," he said.

That's wishful thinking from Dan Gilmartin, president of Michigan Municipal League. His job is to advocate for the big cities. First off, yes the new economy is important, but damn it. Quit giving up on manufacturing. Diversifying the economy doesn't mean throwing manufacturing under the bus. Secondly, I know a lot of people that left the state. The reason isn't for multicultural urban scenes. The reason is jobs.

He said county officials need to "think differently" to create a region that attracts young people. While many generations might be accustomed to making a long commute to work, he said the young generation isn't as connected to owning a car. He said many college graduates think a $400 monthly car payment plus gas and insurance "is a complete waste of money."

Pure Richard Florida Crap. The real answers of importance. Jobs. Schools. Crime. It's not building lofts in some new urbanism paradise. I'll let the census give you the population answers:

Population Estimate:
Royal Oak
2000 - 60,062
2008 - 55,618

Ann Arbor
2000 - 114,024
2008 - 115,299

Detroit
2000 - 951,270
2008 - 808,398

Livingston County
2000 - 156,951
2008 - 182,432

Royal Oak, the poster child of Richard Florida new urbanism in Michigan, lost population. Ann Arbor gained, but that was pre-Pfizer, and they have an ace in their hole. UM. Gilmartian always talks about the young professionals, but what happens when they start families and their kids become school aged? Oftentimes, the people that move to Livingston County from elsewhere are people who settle in the county. The commute for some suck, but the schools are relatively good, the taxes are lower than Oakland or Washtenaw County, the crime is lower, and the small town and rural character is its strengths.

Gilmartin embraced the idea of a commuter train from Howell to Ann Arbor.

"I think it will light your economy on fire," Gilmartin said.

The train to nowhere! I went into great detail in that waste of money 2 1/2 years ago, and nothing has changed.

Still, Pape said the state and southeastern Michigan has the assets to turn things around.

"Southeastern Michigan and Livingston (County) has an awful lot of smart people," he said.

He said the county needs to figure out "what we do better than anybody else and market the heck out of it."

Now that's more like it. People like Livingston County's small town and rural character. It isn't like it used to be when I was growing up here, but much of the character still remains. Lakes, woods, rivers, nature. It's still there.

In order to move on past this economy, Livingston County needs to do what Livingston County does best, and not try to be what it isn't.