Wednesday, April 05, 2006

"Aspirational" v. "Euro-American" Cities

Joel Kotkin is author of The City: A Global History. In his articles “American Cities of Aspiration,” Kotkin divides America between said “aspiration” cities and “Euro-America.” (Weekly Standard, 2.14-2.21.05). “Cities of aspiration” embrace growth and new opportunity, care less about zoning, have a permissive business climate, and perhaps most important, have affordable housing.

Cities of aspiration include Atlanta, Phoenix, Charlotte, Las Vegas, and Florida along the Gulf Coast. Because housing is cheap and business easy to start, such cities have no trouble attracting good people—the numbers of college graduates moving to these cities is mushrooming.

“Euro-America” means Boston, San Francisco, Minneapolis, Chicago, Philadelphia; all of which—like Paris, Milan, Rome, and Amsterdam—are either stagnant or losing population. Boston is losing college graduates, especially those over 30. New York has fewer private-sector positions than it had in 1969. San Francisco is the city with the highest percentage of income stemming from dividends, rent, and interest. In the Bay Area, barely one in ten households can afford to buy a median-priced home—which takes an income of $125,000. Seattle has half as many children as it had with the same overall population in 1960.

European cities are great places to live, if you can afford it, and so is Euro-America. Those who own homes in these cities are the modern landed gentry, happy to keep things as they are, even if it means slow growth, poor public schools, and high taxes financing a ponderous bureaucracy.

Kotkin, who lives in Los Angeles, sees the evolution of that city from “aspirational” to “Euro-American” as a trend favorable for the latter group. L.A. is troubled by lost open space and neglected schools and roads, which has led to the lock environmentalists and public sector unions have on that city's politics. Still, he believes companies, entrepreneurs, and individuals will seek out cities where they don’t have to pay for inefficient public-sector bureaucracies, and where they are free to pursue happiness privately.

No comments: