For all the concern about the gentrification, rising housing prices and the growing gap between the rich and poor in our leading cities, an even bigger threat lies on the horizon: The urban revival that swept across America over the past decade or two may be in danger. As it turns out, the much-ballyhooed new age of the city might be giving way to a great urban stall-out. — The New York Times
Richard Florida paints a gloomy picture of the state of the great American urban revival in his NYT op-ed, "The Urban Revival Is Over," citing gentrification, income disparity, rising crime numbers, unaffordable housing prices, and the anti-urban agenda of the current White House tenants.
Joe Cortright, over at City Observatory, offers a good analysis of Florida's piece; breaking down numbers, highlighting statistics, weighing in on the crime numbers claim, and easing the general dystopian mood: "Rather than proclaiming the end of the urban revival, Florida’s evidence really makes the case for a renewed national commitment to building more great urban neighborhoods."
I think he's short sighted in his analysis. All the growth that starts at the start of the millennium is preceded by a subtle campaign of disinvestment through red-lining and broken windows because you need to control property to make space for money when the time comes.
It really points to the limitation of data-driven urbanism. The information is accessible only so far back and the the lure of being a flaneur from behind a desk doesn't help matters.
All 4 Comments
oh god the big urbanists are annoying. When your b.s. narrative is just a gilded age neoliberal fantasy, cut and run! At least then you'll find out there are cities outside of New York and San Francisco. Kimmelman must be somewhere in Lagos crying right now, his guru has lost faith.
I think he's short sighted in his analysis. All the growth that starts at the start of the millennium is preceded by a subtle campaign of disinvestment through red-lining and broken windows because you need to control property to make space for money when the time comes.
It really points to the limitation of data-driven urbanism. The information is accessible only so far back and the the lure of being a flaneur from behind a desk doesn't help matters.
Good analysis in the Cortright piece. City's have largely been unable to create the infrastructure to support urban center growth. The inner city school systems are largely as they were 20 years ago (if not much smaller). Not enough new, diverse, and affordable housing types have been built. Not enough neighborhoods have the amenities to support children. If diverse, mixed-income communities are the goal from a policy perspective, cities have largely been standing pat with their eyes closed to the opportunities.
There's too many variables to make any statement about "cities" and not end up looking like a complete idiot. Throwing charts and data into your book might win points in the big urbanist crowd, but it's dangerous to take any of it seriously. The only truth is buy low and sell high... if you are a lemming, just follow what Richard Florida thinks
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.