Opportunity Urbanism

Joel Kotkin reports:

In one view, the fate of urban areas—and of cities in general—depends largely on the area’s ability to attract the wealthiest individuals, the people with the highest skills, and those who can perform the most rarefied economic functions. The resulting “superstar cities” cater largely to the upper classes and to those who serve them; generally, those cities are becoming too expensive for middle income individuals or families.

Another popular formulation concludes that to remain vibrant, cities must lure the so-called “creative class” of skilled workers with urban amenities, social attitudes, and cultural offerings. The emphasis here is on the so-called “war for talent.” Cities that win this battle, the theory goes, emerge as the avant-garde in technology, culture, and the expanding global economy.

Implicitly, these approaches give short shrift to the need to accommodate either an expanding population or a wide variety of social groups. These formulations emphasize “quality” as opposed to “quantity”; each superstar city should be preoccupied with the struggle to boost its attractiveness to elites, as opposed to seeking ways to keep the doors of opportunity and homeownership open to the working and middle classes. Instead, superstar cities offer what New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg has called “a luxury product.”

A handful of urban regions—San Francisco, Boston, perhaps Seattle and Portland—could conceivably succeed with
such a strategy. These areas have relatively low percentages of undereducated people, and boast nested concentrations of
high-end industries. But it is difficult to see how such areas could accommodate an American population that is expected
to rise from 300 million today to at least 400 million in 2050.

Another great one by Joel Kotkin.