The profs at Marginal Revolution sink further in my estimation, assuming they cite this being consistent with their opinions:
Ed Glaeser reviews Richard Florida:
But while I agree with much of Florida’s substantive claims about the real, I end up with doubts about his prescriptions for urban planning. Florida makes the reasonable argument that as cities hinge on creative people, they need to attract creative people. So far, so good. Then he argues that this means attracting bohemian types who like funky, socially free areas with cool downtowns and lots of density. Wait a minute. Where does that come from? I know a lot of creative people. I’ve studied a lot of creative people. Most of them like what most well-off people like—big suburban lots with easy commutes by automobile and safe streets and good schools and low taxes. After all, there is plenty of evidence linking low taxes, sprawl and safety with growth. Plano, Texas was the most successful skilled city in the country in the 1990s (measured by population growth)—it’s not exactly a Bohemian paradise.
So why do creative people live in New York, LA, London, Paris, San Francisco, Seattle? Because those places represent rich concentrations of talent, skill, resources, and the social infrastructure that lets innovation and creativity blossom. I just looked over the Plano, TX, chamber of commerce and wasn’t overwhelmed by what I found. Maybe not the best place to look . . .
I found one computer software/consulting shop, five ad design/graphics shops, one art/theater studio . . . maybe they don’t all sign up with the C of C?
As for “big suburban lots with easy commutes by automobile and safe streets and good schools and low taxes,” yeah, so what? Sounds to me that they like stuff — safe streets and good schools — that they’re not willing to pay for — low taxes.
As for sprawl, this sums it up for me: Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell. I won’t say I agree 100% with Kunstler’s gloomy view of the world, but nor do I think sprawl and everyone to his own 3000 sq ft mini-mansion on an acre of land 30 miles from their job is a great idea. You’d think people would figure out it’s not sustainable.
Earlier, they claim the ideas expounded in The Overworked American are bogus.
It’s so cute when tenured professors share their Panglossian view of the world, but frustrating as well. For one thing, that book came out in 1993, so the world has likely changed a bit since then. Seems lame to take up the book now. But my initial thought when I read this comment was a recollection of what one of the professors I worked with 3 years ago said: “What are the three best things about being a college professor? June, July, and August.” I don’t think most people in the economy would be able to relate to people whose workday, indeed whose careers, offer as much flexibility as a tenured college professor.