We have recently moved the Creative Class Exchange.
Please update your bookmarks with our new address at www.creativeclass.com
We look forward to your comments and discussion.
Thank you.
Writing in the New York Times, Columbia University sociologist, Sudhir Venkatesh argues that it is time to shutter the US Department of Housing and urban Development and replace it with a new Department of Urban Development.
How could a program aimed at curbing inequality and helping the poor end up creating new pockets of poverty? The answer lies partly in HUD’s myopic focus on gentrifying urban cores. ... In correcting HUD’s missteps, we must first separate “housing policy” from “urban development.” Today, housing policy is dictated by private markets, so why not give the Commerce and Treasury Departments oversight of a single authority that administers Federal Housing Administration financing — needed to keep homes affordable for the majority of Americans — and all of HUD’s other housing programs?
Then, the development needs of our nation’s regions — wide areas like the Northeast corridor or Southern California — could be considered anew. ... Regionalism must be embraced, even if it tests local officials who fear losing their traditional sources of government financing.
Promoting coherent regional development will also entail linking urban policy concerns like community development and social services with work like rehabbing roads and building railways ... Americans live too spread out, and economic activity is no longer limited to downtowns. Community-based initiatives — from vocational programs to rezoning efforts to designing effective transportation corridors and recreational space — are sorely needed but will be effective only if they tie into a broader vision that anticipates growth on a large scale.
He's absolutely right.
UPDATE: Arnold Kling says not so fast:
Venkatesh then proceeds, rather naively in my view, to call for replacing the Department of Housing and Urban Development with a better department. First of all, failure only leads to exit in markets, not in government. Second, who is to say that the next generation of programs will not also be captured by special interests?
That's the title of this Wall Street Journal report:
For much of the 20th century, the proportion of whites shrank in most U.S. cities. In recent years the decline has slowed considerably -- and in some significant cases has reversed. Between 2000 and 2006, eight of the 50 largest cities, including Boston, Seattle and San Francisco, saw the proportion of whites increase, according to Census figures. The previous decade, only three cities saw increases.
Robert Lang in the Next American City (via Planetizen):
"Cosmoburbs” is the term used in the forthcoming book “Boomburbs: The Rise of America’s Accidental Cities” to describe wealthy suburbs that are also diverse and that increasingly contain non-traditional households. Leading examples around the nation include Naperville, Ill., Plano, Texas, Bellevue, Wash., and Lakewood and Aurora in Colorado ...
In many respects, the Cosmoburb may be the coming America where race is part of the ambiance. Ethnic restaurants and shops with exotic goods draw people into these communities. In such places, it does not matter what race the neighbor is - as long as the lawn is mowed.
The new Cosmoburbs will be part of a global economy. For planners this means that suburbs should not be thought of as merely bedroom communities, but as new economic hubs for an increasingly “brain"-oriented economy .... Suburbs today don’t have less sophisticated economies than cities but are equal to central cities. This shift will require not only new thinking about design, transit and infrastructure in the suburbs, but also new thinking about how the suburbs can truly accommodate singles, seniors, the foreign-born and people of every color.