This is the kind of thing that Kotkin says that makes my blood boil:
He's less impressed with Cleveland, which tried to take the "hip" approach: "They did the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, they built lofts, they created this kind of new and improved downtown ... [and] what's the result? Poorest city in America, highest percentage of poverty in the country."
Yeh right...he might be right but it's simply a huge gamble on his part to attribute causality to the rock and roll hall of fame. where's the pudding?
yeah i don't know what other things he may have said about Cleveland, but a lot of what he says seems like a run-on inheritance of assumptions and personal distastes. but sometimes assumptions become prompts to at least examine connections.
i don't know, i understand your reaction, just makes me want to investigate Cleveland more on my own now, because i know very little about that city or the R n R hall of Fame. but wish (from, again the little I have read), that more of his talk was backed up, and as right as he may be, makes him less buyable. and when he's not right, makes you wonder where his connections come from.
anyone that says phoenix is a model of a thriving community as a result of the middle class, will take me as far away as possible to the so called 'middle class havens' he suggest. ill take the dregs of the poorest urban area or yuppie town-at least they have culture -phoenix should be blown up, abandoned and started over. -- this guy needs to get a life.
Forgive me if I think Kotkin's findings are a little underwhelming, like cracking Seven Habits of Highly Effective People and finding out that the first three are eat, sleep and breathe (thanks for the advice). Pick up de Toqueville's Democracy in America, or look at some socio-economic demographics in any recent Economist or Newsweek, or just think back to your junior high civics class. As much of a cliche as it is, the populace of United States, on the whole, still believes in God, equal opportunity, and hard work. That's the basic, one-size-fits-all view of the country, and Kotkin is giving us the eighth-grade version of urban planning, trying to satisfy these cultural values with jobs, schools, and churches.
I'm sure it works--and it's probably a great formula if you *want* to create bland megacities in the flyover states that serve John Q Public. But it's not really a recipe for success, it's one for basic survival--achieved by pandering to the lowest common denominator (note that to find examples of unsuccessful cities, Kotkin resorts to scraping the bottom of the barrel--the 'poorest city in America, highest percentage of poverty in the country').
Set the bar a little higher, look at the cities that are real overachievers: they're less religious than the rest of the country, the public education usually sucks (though the private universities are great), and they have a strong cultural identity supported by people who often struggle economically in lousy jobs, by choice, because of the community and opportunity the city affords.
I agree with the 'underwhelming' nature of his response.
I remember back when, according to the 'loudest' urban planners/designers the key ingrediant to successful urbanity was bringing creative, affluent, gay people into the city. After reading the article, I came away with a notion of Orwellian Americanism that has become, in my opinion, a driving force behind a great many things in the post 9/11 U.S.A., and is now creeping into thoughts on urbanism.
Maybe I'm looking a little too deeply into this stuff, though.
I think he had a point. I suppose its a worldview issue. Some consider a city an "overacheiver" despite characteristics such as "less religious than the rest of the country, the public education usually sucks... [people] often struggle economically in lousy jobs, by choice, because of the 'community and opportunity' the city affords."
Others find those characteristics to be the definition of a failed city. What it seems to come down to is that "culture" and "community" are really euphemisms for a thriving club scene and lots of empty art museums and high-brow theaters. "Culture" has been replaced by "places to feel important", and community has been replaced by "places to look at people"
I think he had a point. If "community" means people caring about each other on more than a surface level, and "culture" requires a quality education to be appreciated and participated in, then many cities have failed. While economically and reputationally, they might be thriving, there is still a trend toward the city being a playground for the young, agnostic, rich, and single (to be used for a while, then discarded).
I'm not an expert but I don't know of any conclusive evidence indicating that the degree of religious faith in a city is directly related to its quality of life. The idea that a city with many 'agnostics' is 'the definition of a failed city' is the promoting a religious agenda, sound urban planning principles. (The promotion of religious freedom and tolerance, OTOH, is a laudable goal, but one unrelated to the degree of religious faith in a city.)
In defining culture and community as you do, exclusively as euphemisms, you imply that there does not exist a city with packed art museums, well-used theaters (high-brow or low), and resources for groups other than club kids. May I suggest you visit Stanley Park or Crissy Field to see non-club kids frolicking out of doors. Visit the Tate, MoMA, SFMoMA, or Louvre (though MoMA in particular is too crowded for me). Get in line for some tickets for a show on Broadway, or at the Schaubühne. And for pete's sake *enjoy it*, don't just do it to 'feel important'. Believe it or not, some of us architects attend cultural events for pleasure, not just to impress our dates. There are a gazillion other counterexamples. A fair assessment of community and culture certainly do not 'come down to' your limiting characterizations.
Likewise, I don't think that youth and creativity are incompatible with creating a strong community. Rock clubs and art galleries exist because someone wants to help promote small bands and build a local art scene. People start hip restaurants because they want somewhere for locals to eat that's better than an Olive Garden franchise. These are ways for people to put down roots,d and in my experience they're labors of love done most often by the young, creative, and motivated. A great city will attract them, integrate them into the city, and get them to participate in and perpetuate a local culture. Youth and creativity can fuel a unique culture quickly and build a city with things that don't exist anywhere else.
A city that attracts the 'young, agnostic, and single' is probably doing something right, not teetering on the brink of doom: it probably has (relatively) affordable housing, decent universities, and an active cultural scene. Not that these are the only things a good city needs (let's throw in diversity & tolerance, good education at all levels, economic support for local business, and quality public spaces), but it's an indicator of a good start.
Jun 14, 05 10:54 pm ·
·
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.
9 Comments
This is the kind of thing that Kotkin says that makes my blood boil:
He's less impressed with Cleveland, which tried to take the "hip" approach: "They did the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, they built lofts, they created this kind of new and improved downtown ... [and] what's the result? Poorest city in America, highest percentage of poverty in the country."
Yeh right...he might be right but it's simply a huge gamble on his part to attribute causality to the rock and roll hall of fame. where's the pudding?
yeah i don't know what other things he may have said about Cleveland, but a lot of what he says seems like a run-on inheritance of assumptions and personal distastes. but sometimes assumptions become prompts to at least examine connections.
i don't know, i understand your reaction, just makes me want to investigate Cleveland more on my own now, because i know very little about that city or the R n R hall of Fame. but wish (from, again the little I have read), that more of his talk was backed up, and as right as he may be, makes him less buyable. and when he's not right, makes you wonder where his connections come from.
anyone that says phoenix is a model of a thriving community as a result of the middle class, will take me as far away as possible to the so called 'middle class havens' he suggest. ill take the dregs of the poorest urban area or yuppie town-at least they have culture -phoenix should be blown up, abandoned and started over. -- this guy needs to get a life.
Forgive me if I think Kotkin's findings are a little underwhelming, like cracking Seven Habits of Highly Effective People and finding out that the first three are eat, sleep and breathe (thanks for the advice). Pick up de Toqueville's Democracy in America, or look at some socio-economic demographics in any recent Economist or Newsweek, or just think back to your junior high civics class. As much of a cliche as it is, the populace of United States, on the whole, still believes in God, equal opportunity, and hard work. That's the basic, one-size-fits-all view of the country, and Kotkin is giving us the eighth-grade version of urban planning, trying to satisfy these cultural values with jobs, schools, and churches.
I'm sure it works--and it's probably a great formula if you *want* to create bland megacities in the flyover states that serve John Q Public. But it's not really a recipe for success, it's one for basic survival--achieved by pandering to the lowest common denominator (note that to find examples of unsuccessful cities, Kotkin resorts to scraping the bottom of the barrel--the 'poorest city in America, highest percentage of poverty in the country').
Set the bar a little higher, look at the cities that are real overachievers: they're less religious than the rest of the country, the public education usually sucks (though the private universities are great), and they have a strong cultural identity supported by people who often struggle economically in lousy jobs, by choice, because of the community and opportunity the city affords.
hear, hear, derek.
I agree with the 'underwhelming' nature of his response.
I remember back when, according to the 'loudest' urban planners/designers the key ingrediant to successful urbanity was bringing creative, affluent, gay people into the city. After reading the article, I came away with a notion of Orwellian Americanism that has become, in my opinion, a driving force behind a great many things in the post 9/11 U.S.A., and is now creeping into thoughts on urbanism.
Maybe I'm looking a little too deeply into this stuff, though.
I think he had a point. I suppose its a worldview issue. Some consider a city an "overacheiver" despite characteristics such as "less religious than the rest of the country, the public education usually sucks... [people] often struggle economically in lousy jobs, by choice, because of the 'community and opportunity' the city affords."
Others find those characteristics to be the definition of a failed city. What it seems to come down to is that "culture" and "community" are really euphemisms for a thriving club scene and lots of empty art museums and high-brow theaters. "Culture" has been replaced by "places to feel important", and community has been replaced by "places to look at people"
I think he had a point. If "community" means people caring about each other on more than a surface level, and "culture" requires a quality education to be appreciated and participated in, then many cities have failed. While economically and reputationally, they might be thriving, there is still a trend toward the city being a playground for the young, agnostic, rich, and single (to be used for a while, then discarded).
this guy also had an article in "The New Republic." It seemed like no real news, just perhaps trying to find physical effects of the dot-com crash.
Best part of this? Real discussion on Archinect.
I'm not an expert but I don't know of any conclusive evidence indicating that the degree of religious faith in a city is directly related to its quality of life. The idea that a city with many 'agnostics' is 'the definition of a failed city' is the promoting a religious agenda, sound urban planning principles. (The promotion of religious freedom and tolerance, OTOH, is a laudable goal, but one unrelated to the degree of religious faith in a city.)
In defining culture and community as you do, exclusively as euphemisms, you imply that there does not exist a city with packed art museums, well-used theaters (high-brow or low), and resources for groups other than club kids. May I suggest you visit Stanley Park or Crissy Field to see non-club kids frolicking out of doors. Visit the Tate, MoMA, SFMoMA, or Louvre (though MoMA in particular is too crowded for me). Get in line for some tickets for a show on Broadway, or at the Schaubühne. And for pete's sake *enjoy it*, don't just do it to 'feel important'. Believe it or not, some of us architects attend cultural events for pleasure, not just to impress our dates. There are a gazillion other counterexamples. A fair assessment of community and culture certainly do not 'come down to' your limiting characterizations.
Likewise, I don't think that youth and creativity are incompatible with creating a strong community. Rock clubs and art galleries exist because someone wants to help promote small bands and build a local art scene. People start hip restaurants because they want somewhere for locals to eat that's better than an Olive Garden franchise. These are ways for people to put down roots,d and in my experience they're labors of love done most often by the young, creative, and motivated. A great city will attract them, integrate them into the city, and get them to participate in and perpetuate a local culture. Youth and creativity can fuel a unique culture quickly and build a city with things that don't exist anywhere else.
A city that attracts the 'young, agnostic, and single' is probably doing something right, not teetering on the brink of doom: it probably has (relatively) affordable housing, decent universities, and an active cultural scene. Not that these are the only things a good city needs (let's throw in diversity & tolerance, good education at all levels, economic support for local business, and quality public spaces), but it's an indicator of a good start.
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.