[COMM-ORG] Toronto, Richard Florida and community resonses

[Discussion list for COMM-ORG]

[ed:  Richard continues the discussion.  A bit from me below his post.]

From: Richard Layman <rlaymandc at yahoo.com>


The reality is that center cities do compete with other jurisdictions on 
at least three levels: nationally; within states; and within the 
metropolitan regional landscape in which they are located.   Florida's 
work, as well as the others I mentioned in the first post (Saxenian, 
Porter, Jacobs) provides direction on how city's ought to focus their 
limited resources.  Again, this is a basic element of urban economics 
and the concept of agglomeration economies.

I argue that my work is on revitalization and repopulation of center 
cities.  I don't care about fixing suburbs.  And while I care about 
sprawl a lot, my interest in fixing it is more indirect as I focus on 
urban revitalization.

Within a metropolitan region, neighborhoods and municipalities do 
compete, whether or not you subscribe to the Growth Machine or Urban 
Regime thesis.  It's reality.

While the thought of figuring out how to "fix" an entire center city 
should be paralyzing for any thinking person (cf. "Shrinking City" 
efforts including those in Europe, www.youngstown2010.com, and the 
recent publicity on Flint Michigan/Genessee County's housing demolition 
efforts) the reality is that efforts should be focused on improving 
neighborhoods that can be competitive for people with choices (see 
Mallach _Bringing Buildings Back_; Goetze _Building Neighborhood 
Confidence_; Ezell _Get Urban_).

At least in my opinion.  Even though I think many of the projects are 
misdirected, Michigan's Cool Cities program in theory assists urban 
neighborhoods in becoming more competitive within their region (i.e., 
some neighborhoods in Detroit can compete with the urban cool-funky 
inner suburban towns such as Royal Oak and Ferndale).  This is another 
example.

I am hoping (although I won't hold my breath although indications seem 
good) that the Obama Administration's Office of Urban Policy will help 
forge a different path forward on urban policy.  Your concerns as well 
as mine need to be integrated into new strategies for urban growth and 
prosperity.

We know what the problems are.  Whether or not we can get regional, 
state, and national political institutions in line with focusing on the 
"solutions" is something else entirely, especially as capital is 
increasingly place-less.  Maybe oil shocks and the increased bankruptcy 
of the federal budget will force some positive changes on center 
city/urban policy.

In the meantime, I keep my nose down and deal with what I can deal with.

RL

************************

[ed:  as this is a list about community organizing, I want to try and 
focus this discussion less on the abstract urban policy questions, and 
more on the community organizing questions.  In that vein, I think some 
of the community organizing-related issues in Richard's post have to do 
with the problem of global capital and national policy.  What is the 
relationship between local community organizing and both governmental 
and corporate barriers that are not local?  This goes back to a query I 
sent out earlier about whether organizing is beginning to expand again 
to national issues.  If it is, can it possibly also take on things like 
urban development?  There is certainly precedence for that in the 
post-cold war period.  The Neighborhood Priority Boards process in 
Dayton actually engages neighborhoods in setting budget priorities.  The 
Neighborhood Revitalization Program in Minneapolis grew out of 
neighborhood organizing there.  Neither addresses the problems of global 
capitalism and national policy, so that is a leap remaining to be made.  
But they and other examples provide a starting point.]


>