And you may ask yourself...

David Byrne has some  very interesting thoughts on art and creativity as status goods, spurred by his visit to Miami's Art Basel. Walter Benjamin famously argued that art had lost its magical quality or "aura" in the "era of mechanical reproduction."  Riffing on Geoffrey Miller's book, The Mating Mind on Art, which argues that art evolved as "display" useful for sexual selection, Byrne argues that industrial techniques supplant craft and skill, shifting desirability to intentional "crudity" in which value becomes little more than a game who's rules are set by artists, scenes,  and taste-makers.  The pictures are from Byrne's post as well.

"Art, amongst other pursuits, is, according to this idea, one of a number of gauges of deeper fitness, creativity and skill. The maker may have genetic fitness not immediately apparent, especially given the fact that the typical creative person’s uniform is not a power suit ... Miller quotes Thorstein Veblen who says it used to be that the better made a spoon was, for example — the smoother, more symmetrical it was — the more highly regarded the artist and his work would be. But now machines can easily, quickly and cheaply make spoons that are more perfect that anything any artist can make by hand. Quality, in the traditional sense, has been devalued, as now anyone can afford the perfect spoon...In a clever lateral move, the arbiters of taste — and the artists as well — now seem to value everything in inverse proportion to its perfection — lumpy, imperfect and even crudely handmade items are now more valued than the clean elegant lines a machine can produce. Poor craftsmanship is valued above skill and elegance... Mere sloppiness is not enough; it must be intentional sloppiness, primitivism or borderline psychotic behavior... Painting subverts this subversion of its traditional nature by redefining itself — art is idea, not simply skillful execution. So, a work can be crudely made, or even machine made — but it has to be practically and functionally useless."

"Artists and tastemakers have taken this even further: they have created a rarified world in which only they — the in-crowd — can determine what is good and valuable. This is simply a re-establishment of animal hierarchies but with a new set of rules. The choices, the rules that define what is to be highly regarded and what is not, are often based on obscure heuristics (as well as market desirability and scarcity) but the basic idea is to create a world of aesthetics that is beyond the comprehension of the ordinary punter. A host of arbiters arrive on the scene to do the job of determining which items fit the bill... we have intentionally primitive art made by sophisticates, from Picasso to Basquiat to Bob Dylan and Tom Waits, as well as found objects and typewritten instructions that are like modern Zen koans, minus the elegant brushstrokes..."

"Is it all just a game by the upper and moneyed classes, or a con pulled by a small in-group, achieved by convincing museums and the media that there is something of innate worth there? We know that in this world value is assigned for seemingly arbitrary reasons — or at least they seem arbitrary to an outsider. In the art world, if you can convince someone that a scribble is worth a million bucks it’s actually truly worth that as soon as the buyer writes the check. The check is confirmation, as would be prime placement in an art book or museum...It may be a crazy game of high stakes poker, but it also confers, in this case, a certain level of class and sophistication to be allowed entry into the playing field ...In Miller’s view, this world is no longer about the objects or the art, just as poker is not about the way the cards actually look, but about jockeying for position and status…with some financial payoffs and museum wings in your name to boot..."

The rest, with lot's more pictures, is here.

The question this brings to mind is: What does this mean for music?  Seems to me that the shift from industrial to digital technology (sampling, voice-correction, and so-on) exacerbates the trend away from craft and skill and toward status factors of one sort or another. Could this in part be what is behind the fissure between popular music with its emphasis on hyper-celebrity and indie music which has splintered into narrow taste-making scenes reflecting just such "insider" status.

Any thoughts?

New geography of breakthrough science

Most scientists pursue "normal science," but every so often a truly great breakthrough comes along that is truly revolutionary. So which universities are best at attracting the sorts of scientists who generate such breakthroughs?  According to research by Bruce Charlton on trends in Nobel prizes since 1946, American universities dominate as centers for revolutionary science. But within the US, advantage has shifted considerably over the past couple of  decades  (hat tip: Tyler Cowen).  And note how geographically concentrated or "spiky" revolutionary science is.

"Over 60 years, the USA has 19 institutions which won three-plus Nobel prizes in 20 years, the UK has 4, France has 2 and Sweden and USSR 1 each.  Four US institutions won 3 or more prizes in all 20 year segments: Harvard, Stanford, Berkeley and CalTech.  The most successful institution in the past 20 years was MIT, with 11 prizes followed by Stanford (9), Chicago and Columbia (7). But the Western United States has become the world dominant region for revolutionary science – with Stanford, Berkeley and CalTech now being amplified by a new generation of elite public universities: University of Colorado at Boulder, University of Washington at Seattle, University of California at Santa Barbara, UCSF (University of California at San Fransisco), University of California at Irvine, UCLA (University of California at Los Angeles) - also the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center at Seattle ...MIT and Princeton have both overtaken Harvard to become first and fifth among Nobel prize-winners. Columbia declined in the middle period, but recovered strongly to reach equal-third in the rankings. The NIH and Yale have significantly declined during the most recent 20 years.  Harvard is particularly interesting ... Harvard has more than double the number of citations of Stanford (which is second) ...Harvard also tops the respected Shanghai Jiao Tong University world rankings. Yet there are signs of a decline in revolutionary science at Harvard. From 47-86 Harvard was the top Nobel-prize-winning institution, but for the past 20 years it has been overtaken in prize numbers by MIT (11), Stanford (9), Columbia (7), Chicago (7) and Princeton (6) – all of which are considerably smaller. The implication may be that Harvard is evolving towards being a ‘normal science’ university – albeit unusually large and successful."

  The full article is here.   

The no-collar workplace

The real legacy of the '60s is not Woodstock (or even Greenwich Village in its halcyon hippie days), it's Silicon Valley's style of  free-spirited, laid-back, blurred-boundaries, around-the-clock work. 

Now,  Google 's new downtown campus is bringing the no-collar workplace to the veritable  belly of finance capitalism, New York City, whose high-rise towers filled with those men in gray-flannel suits defined the epicenter of '50s-style organization man corporate culture.  According to the New York Times:

"The campus-like workspace is antithetical to the office culture of most New York businesses. It is a vision of a workplace utopia as conceived by rich, young, single engineers in Silicon Valley, transplanted to Manhattan. The New York tradition of leaving the office to network over lunch or an evening cocktail party has no place at Google, where employees are encouraged to socialize among themselves. There are groups of Gayglers, Newglers and Bikeglers (who bike to work together) ...For a Thank God It’s Almost Friday gathering on Dec. 14, Laura Garrett, a sales operations specialist, organized an art show. “Being a Googler and being part of Chelsea, I wanted to do something that was more downtownish than a typical Google event,” said Ms. Garrett, a blonde wearing Marc Jacobs heels. Williamsburg artists created the work on display, for prices from $225 to $8,000  ...The Empire State Building glowed red and green in the background as if color-coordinated to the Googleplex’s interiors rather than Christmas. By 6:30 p.m., Steve Saviano, 22, a software engineer, was hanging out with his fellow Googlers at a table littered with empty beer and wine bottles. "This is academic life all over again,” Mr. Saviano said. “But I’m getting paid. This is a 100 percent better option than graduate school.”

The rest is here (Hat tip: Rana/ Tim Gulden).

Three things crossed my mind as I read the story and scanned its pictures, which interestingly enough appeared in the fashion and style section and not the business section.

• (1) You can't pump creative work out of people, assembly-line style.  Motivating this kind of mental work requires a new kind of  workplace, one that appears to be nurturing,  attuned to individuality, and "fun"-  a trend I dubbed "soft-control" in Rise.
• (2) It's a mistake to see this stuff as all frills and perks. Companies are doing it because it is increasingly required to attract top talent.  Offering a stimulating environment, flexible work hours, and the ability to be "yourself" is an effective and relatively "cheap" way of competing against, say, investment banks and hedge-funds.
• (3)  Scanning the photos, I was struck by the similarity between these new work-spaces and college dorm rooms, where so many of these high-tech companies come from, or even the play-spaces of middle age teenagers. Could it be that the demographic trends toward postponed marriage, extended single years and what Ethan Watters dubbed the "urban tribe" are being projected into the work-place?

Question: What does this re-framing of work as part "play" mean for the way we define our work and ourselves, and for our society? Your thoughts.

Mini-me McMansions

In what has to be one of the most hilarious stories I've read all year, the Wall Street Journal profiles a growing trend of people building miniatures of their homes as playhouses for their kids (Hat tip: Rob Walker).

"House-proud Americans have a new way to show off their trophy homes. Taking the pricey playhouse concept to the next level, some homeowners are building Mini-Me McMansions for their kids. The lavish replicas, which can include such grown-up amenities as hardwood floors and media rooms with satellite TVs, generally cost from $10,000 to $100,000. Some run even higher than that, exceeding the median price of a single-family home ($218,000 in November). In some areas the playhouses are running afoul of local zoning ordinances, building codes and housing-development covenants, annoying neighbors who object to the backyard estates and racking up substantial fines."

Read the rest here. The pictures are the best part.

Robert Reich's crystal ball

The always provocative Robert Reich looks back on '06.

It was perhaps the worst congress of the twentieth century -- not a do-nothing congress, a do-awful congress. It was a congress that dispensed so much lard you’d think they had a pig-slaughtering house in the cloak rooms. At last count, the 109th Congress handed out over $50 billion in earmarks to lobbyists who bundled campaign contributions on their behalf. This congress also spent billions more in corporate welfare for Big Oil, Big Pharma, Big Telecom.

And don’t forget the congressmen who put both their hands into the trough and got back corporate gifts, junkets, and outright bribes. The Congressional Hall of Shame grew bigger this year with the notable additions of Tom DeLay, Bob Ney, and Duke Cunningham, all of whom got caught up in the Abramoff scandal. There was also that $90,000 that turned up in Congressman William Jefferson’s freezer.

Also feeding at the trough this year were defense contractors like Haliburton, who were found to have been wasting tens of billions of taxpayer dollars in Iraq and Afghanistan on projects that don’t work or never got built in the first place.

In addition, the chief executives of some of America’s biggest companies who handed themselves the largest salaries and bonuses on record, and – we now know – stock options back-dated to maximize their value.

It was a year when investment bankers on Wall Street raked in even more. Bonus time on the Street yielded tens of millions of dollars to some traders, hedge-fund managers and private-equity managers. How did they make all this money? Some, by timing trades. Others by taking companies private, loading them up with debt, cutting their payrolls, and then taking them public again. Others by monopolizing Initial Public Offerings and getting in on the juiciest ones before the rest of the public.

Most of the cost of this feeding frenzy by politicians, defense contractors, and Wall Streeters was borne by average workers, normal taxpayers, and small investors. Most of them did only modestly in 2006. Median wages rose slightly but adjusted for inflation were still below what they were in 2000, and health and pension benefits shrank, overall. Small investors did a bit better than last year but many still have not caught up with where they were in 2000.

But the biggest cost of all this has been to our democratic-capitalist system itself. When people at the top abuse their power, the average person loses trust in that system. The result is widespread cynicism. And if most people are cynical, how can anything ever change?

And then forward to '07

In an effort to prevent domestic social upheaval and to appease the Bush administration, which has asked it to spend more money domestically, China embarks on a large-scale program to improve its environment and social services. This, along with rising world oil and commodity prices, leaves China with less money to lend to the United States. The resulting drop in the value of the dollar causes Opec nations to stop transacting in dollars. It also prompts Warren Buffet, most global corporations, and several giant hedge funds to put more money into euros and yen, causing the dollar to drop further and faster.

With everything Americans purchase from abroad suddenly costing much more, and the nation still needing foreign money to support its budget deficit and personal spending, US interest rates rise considerably. Millions of American homeowners are unable to pay their mortgages, resulting in a wave of bank foreclosures. Housing and auto sales plummet and unemployment rises. Median wages drop, but America's global rich, who have hedged their savings in foreign currencies, are richer than ever. This fans the flames of economic populism and nationalism. In June, Congress refuses to renew Bush's fast-track authority to make trade deals.

Meanwhile, the carnage in Iraq worsens as Shiites take control of Baghdad and Sunnis begin lobbing missiles into the capital. A surge of American troops at the start of the year further inflames radical Islamists and renders the American-backed Iraqi parliament helpless. President Bush says he seeks "peace with honor" and asks for more time but congressional Democrats threaten to withhold further defense appropriations unless American troops are withdrawn by the end of the year. In July, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown announces Britain will be pulling its soldiers out of Iraq by October. Polls show that only 15% of Americans approve the job Bush is doing. He says he "doesn't care".

At the start of September, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton officially announces she will run for president in 2008 to "get America back on track", harkening back to her husband's administration, but polls show her trailing Senator Barack Obama among Democratic voters although Obama has still not yet announced. At the same time, Senator John McCain, the Republican front-runner, lays out a plan to make the US "energy independent" by 2020, and says China is a greater long-term threat to the US interests than al-Qaida.

In October, Lou Dobbs, an anchor for CNN, declares he will run for president as a third party "America First" candidate, promising to revive the economy and recreate good middle-class jobs by shrinking the size of the US military and forcing other nations to pay their "fair share" of policing the world, blocking the flow of illegal immigrants into the U.S., and preventing American companies from outsourcing jobs abroad. Early polling shows Dobbs with a surprising 35% of likely voters.

Mega-star cities

London tops NYC has the center for world's priciest real estate, according to a recent study by CB Richard Ellis Hamptons International.  The highest-end London properties, according to the study,  go for as much as $5,860 per square foot compared to $5,276 per square foot for similar NYC properties.  On average, central London properties cost around $2,300 a square foot, compared with $1,900 in NYC, the study reports.

Driving this, the report finds, is demand for space and the appreciating pound.  According to a related story in the San Jose Mercury News, as British sterling approaches "the $2 mark for the first time since 1992, such exorbitant property prices have kept many an American expatriate at bay. "If we were to buy in London, we would lose half our down payment money with the current exchange rate,'' said Erin Maury, an American who rents a home in London. "Unfortunately, at this rate -- and with prices so high -- there is no way we can afford to purchase a home here.''

But I suspect there may be more fundamental forces at play. In Flight, I argued that America's creeping anti-immigration posture and general retreat from openness was nearing a tipping point. The argument was not that Americans would leave the US, but rather that, at the margin, foreign talent might redirect toward other countries and city-regions - yes, like Britain and London - that were investing in creativity and developing a more open and welcoming posture. I pointed to several American scientists as well cultural figures who had relocated to England. And I further suggested that when such tipping points are reached the shift can and does occur very quickly. Consider, for example,  the mass migration of European scientific, artistic and entrepreneurial talent which propelled NYC ahead of its once dominant European counterparts including London during the early-mid 20th century.

Could it be that London's rise reflects such a tipping point in the location preferences of top global talent?  NYC retains many assets and continues to attract a huge number of immigrants. But London is clearly gaining ground.  Has the playing field shifted in ways that grant London significant competitive advantage?

Add to this the effects of rampant globalization which changes the equation in potentially powerful ways. World-city experts typically name four global mega-cities - London, Paris, NYC, Tokyo. But what if globalization and especially open talent flows change the terms of this competition?  We can already see results of growing competition in how regional centers like Chicago or Washington DC are luring economic activity and talent away from other smaller cities. And there is the increasing specialization of economic activity in cities - innovation in Silicon Valley, film in Hollywood, music in Nashville.  Could it be that globalization will eradicate national and regional urban-systems leaving in their place a single global system with a single dominant global city?  Far-fetched? Perhaps. But the computer models we've built with Robert Axtell suggest that is exactly the case.  Gradually, they suggest, an evolution to a single global city-system with one dominant mega-city.

Could it be that it's precisely this growing competition that is motivating Mayor Michael Bloomberg's bold moves to remake NYC's education system and dramatically improve its quality of place?  Hmmmmm.... what ever happened with that bid for the Olympics...?

Your thoughts?

Best of 06

Here are my 2006 "best of's" for music, books, television and film, roughly rank-ordered.

Music:  Sometimes I get down on music, but looking back it was a really great year. There are still many 06 releases, like Bob Dylan's Modern Times and Joanna Newsom's Y that I've yet to listen to.

• TV on the Radio,  Return to Cookie Mountain. The most original and exciting new(ish) band in years.
• Gomez, How We Operate
• Corine Bailey Ray, Corine Bailey Ray
• Cat Power, The Greatest
• Belle and Sebastian, The Life Pursuit
• Neko Case, Fox Confessor Brings the Flood
• Ornette Coleman, Sound Grammar
• Sondre Lerche, The Duper Sessions
• The Ranconteurs, Broken Boy Soldier. Proof that one really good song can carry an album. 
• The Hold Steady, Boys and Girls in America
• The Decemberists, The Crane Wife
• Beck, The Information
• Red Hot Chili Peppers, Stadium Arcadium. Frusciante's brilliant guitar work makes this record.
• The Who, Endless Wire
• Cassandra Wilson, Thunderbird
• Bruce Springsteen, We Shall Overcome: The Seeger Sessions

Books (non-fiction):  A lean year for books, but some solid ones out there.

• Bill Buford, Heat.  The year's best by a wide margin. One of the best I've read in years.
• Daniel Gilbert, Stumbling on Happiness.  Proof that academics can communicate to a broad audience without dumbing things down.
• Chris Anderson, The Long Tail
• Alain De Botton, The Architecture of Happiness
• William Taylor, Mavericks at Work

Television and Film: Ever since The Sopranos, television has shown it can compete with motion pictures. This year it did much more than that.

• The Wire. Television and film at its very best.
• The Office
• 24
• 30 Rock. The most hilarious thing I've seen in a long time.
• Curb Your Enthusiasm
• Little Miss Sunshine
• A Prairie Home Companion
• Weeds
• Big Love
• Arrested Development
• Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip
• The Daily Show/ Colbert Report
• An Inconvenient Truth
• Borat

Get out your crystal balls

It's that time of year.  Trend-time if you will. But let's do this one differently. Open-source it. So I'll start it off with my own top 10.

(1) The American economy will grow modestly but regional divides will worsen.  The bi-coastal mega-regions plus greater Chicago and a few other places will continue to drive innovation and growth, attract talent, and consolidate economic advantage.  The demographic trends of the past decade will accelerate, and the bottom will fall out in a number of older city-regions which have seen their economic functions erode.  Housing markets in these places and in resort destinations will hemorrhage badly, much worse than '06.  Close-in neighborhoods in  super-star cities (NY, DC, San Fran, Chicago and the like) will see prices rebound.

(2) Not surprisingly, 2007 will  be a year of political convulsions.   Despite predictions to the contrary, the culture wars and political polarization will deepen - as  social conservatism gains ground in "conservative" circles and economic populism does the same among "liberal" elements. Of the two,  I actually think populism (read: economic nationalism/ anti-immigration) is the more dangerous tendency. Worse yet, is the possibility that these two trends could come together. Certainly, both will try to extend their "appeal" through the politics of  fear-mongering and scape-goating.

(3) Distrust with national political figures and institutions will grow as a result. Not good news for John McCain, Hilary Clinton, John Edwards, Joe Biden, or Barack Obama for that matter.  Pop quiz: when was the last time a national politician, that is Senator or House member, won the presidency?

(4) Gradually, "surprise" figures from outside the national scene will emerge as strong candidates  in both parties. Mayors and governors will offer new ideas and new options, and begin to influence the national dialogue in constructive ways.  And no, I don't mean Rudy.  Look for someone like Tom Vilsack, Tommy Thompson, or even Mike Bloomberg to cut through the chatter and begin to shape the agenda.

(5) There will be a growing movement against brands, conspicuous consumption, and vulgar materialism.  Label-mania will finally end, as consumer trends shift toward quality and authenticity.

(6) Our popular culture will finally reject hyper-celebrity.  As it does, the publicity-seeking antics of Paris, Lindsay, Britney, Trump, Cruise, et al. will surge to new levels of tastelessness and vulgarity. But fewer and fewer people will actually pay attention, as cultural relevance, like consumer trends, shifts to those who reflect quality, authenticity, and integrity.

(7)  We'll begin to take control of  the technologies that have invaded our homes and lives and take back our time, as we come to recognize the social and mental fallout caused by 24-7, always-on technology.

(8) 2007 will be the year when America finally "goes green" - as environmental awareness exerts more and more influence over both popular culture and the marketplace.

(9) The pendulum of social and cultural aspirations will shift toward happiness and fulfillment and away from money and power.

(10) The biggest trend for 2007, and the one that will effect all others, will be the growing reckoning of America's declining economic and cultural influence. I'm not just talking about the Iraq debacle and growing "anti-americanism" around the globe.  The dollar's decline will accelerate and the greenback will lose its status as the world's reserve currency.  All of this will set the stage for a tumultuous 2008 which will doubtless emerge as the most pivotal year in modern memory.

Now it's time for you to weigh in. Have at it!

Seattle challenge

Here's how one perceptive Seattle blogger challenges his community and all of us.

"Seattle has an enormous number of Creative Class members as well as a ridiculous amount of creative potential...Microsoft, Adobe, Starbucks, Tully’s, REI, The North Face, Nordstrom, Washington Mutual, Amazon.com, Safeco, Jones Soda, Taco Del Mar, Getty Images, Real Networks, Sur La Table, Red Robin, The Little Gym, Nintendo...All of these companies are pioneers for there industry ... People in Seattle are constantly using their individuality to invent, rediscover, and engineer ... As reported a number of months ago, Seattle, a very affluent city, was found to be the least philanthropic ... Seattle was found to be the least generous city in the country ... So here is where I am left…can a city that is highly creative change their lens? Can we begin to use our creativity for positive influence? Can we stop relying on Bill Gates and Paul Allen to carry the load of influence? How do we move high creatives to have positive influence on the world? Can Seattle stop waiting for their arts to leak to the main stream and begin to see ALL creativity as a movement that can inspire hope to those who are in desperate need? Can we stop looking to use our creativity to make money and gain popularity and see it as a gift that we possess that can move other’s to a common good?"

Those are the right questions.  Do you have any answers.

Innovation and the university

Grant McCracken has a series of terrific posts on the university and innovation. He summarizes a presentation by Linda Sanford, IBM Senior VP, on the "changing tectonics of innovation."

"Sanford pointed out that the 20th century CEOs would likely have identified the university world as an important source of innovation, even as they gave pride of place to their own internal research and development departments.  This has changed.  Now both come in at the bottom of the array...The annual investment made in the academic world is very large.  And now it looks as if the ROI is beginning to disappoint."

McCracken on business schools:  "The innovators produced by b-schools are hampered in two ways. First, the b-school discourages the the full creativity that innovation requires.  Second, it artificially constrains the problem set, so that students are discourages from combining creativity with insight, that is, with a full reckoning of the world in which the creativity must make itself useful... it looks as if the University might be failing in the production of both innovation and innovators.  This is scarier, still. " 

McCracken on D (design) schools: "design schools have a good shot at helping the university turn out capable innovators...For one thing the d-schools believe in consulting carefully with the consumer... the design field believes in ethnography, and this method flourished there well before its present popularity in business research circles.  For another thing, the d-school believes in culture.  As it stands, the b-school tends to think about the product or brand in terms of utilities,  functions or benefits.  Brands and products create value by doing work in the world."

What do you  think?

When I'm 64

Guess who's helping lead the back to the city movement. No, it's not the proverbial yuppies, singles and gays, it's empty-nesters looking for excitement and stimulation.  Quoting William Frey, a Brookings Institution demographer, the New York Times highlights the trend of baby-boomers heading back to the city.

“Especially as they reach early retirement, as in ages 50 to 55,” Mr. Frey said, “baby boomers will be testing out areas like New York for the longer term.” According to a report issued by Mr. Frey with the Mortgage Bankers Association in Washington last month, the baby boomers who do not age in place or, like previous generations, move to sunnier climes, will be lured into big cities.  “You can’t really compare baby boomers with previous generations,” Mr. Frey said, “because boomers are forever young. They also have education levels and cultural interests that would suggest they might be more likely to find cities attractive.” The number of older residents moving into New York and other cities is still smaller than the number who move out to the suburbs or to places like Florida and Arizona, but demographers, economists and gerontologists say that “in migration” numbers are sure to grow as baby boomers age."

Here's my own take on the matter from the current version of Who's Your City.

Thankfully, we are way beyond the classic retirement community – god-awful monstrosities with names like “Leisure Village.” With the bulk of the baby-boomers now in their 50s and 60s, this is one of the most rapidly growing “neighborhoods” of all. And, fortunately, they’re increasing in quality as well as quantity. From high-end lofts and condos in the city center, Designer Digs neighborhoods where they can be around art, commerce, and entertainment 24-7 to college towns and life-long learning, the options are endless. When it comes to finding a place to live,” the Wall Street Journal’s 2006 Guild to Retirement Planning and Living wrote, “today’s retirees are looking for something completely different.” For years, the Journal’s report continued, retirees flocked to the sun, warm climates and abundant golf, tennis and water sports in places like Florida, California or Arizona. Not so much anymore. Today, while weather and leisure remain important, retirees are looking for a community “where they can make friends and connections quickly, whether it’s a small town or walkable neighborhood in the big city.”

Retirees are also looking for places where that can indulge “post-work passions,” a second career, a newly adopted sport or be near their grandkids. As John McIlwain a 62 year old resident fellow for the Urban Land Institute was quoted in the story as saying:  “Moving to a mixed-used development, a small town, or seeking an urban experience are all elements of the same thing: it’s a community where you get to know each other…. You’re walking around, and you get to know your neighbors you get to know the shopkeepers, because you meet them on the street.”

A common refrain I hear: “We don’t want to be slaves to our house anymore.” So it’s time to trade in the 4,000 or 5,000 square foot house in the suburbs for an upscale condo or townhouse. The wives want social and cultural stimulation; the husbands a place where they don’t have to worry about the yard.

Car kill

You're five times more likely to be killed by a car in Arkansas or South Carolina than in the UK,  Norway, Switzerland or Massachusetts for that matter  (Hat tip: Neal Takamoto).

Home shoring

How can rural communities adapt and prosper in the era of globalization-- that's  a question I am often asked.  A new report entitled Rural Sourcing: The Migration of Knowledge-Based Jobs to Rural America, by students at the University of Texas at Austin highlights this trend (Hat tip: Steven Pedigo).

"In their research, the students found that not only do companies move certain service functions to small and mid-sized cities to take advantage of the lower wage rates and facility costs, but they do it to avoid the hidden costs associated with offshoring, including travel, communication, security, time schedules and cultural misunderstandings. " Read more here.

What are your thoughts on this trend?

Spiky third world

As cities in the advanced economies "shrink," those in the emerging economies of the Third World are exploding. According to United Nations projections,  the world will have 22 mega-cities with more than 10 million residents by 2015.  Of these, 18 will be in developing countries in Asia, Africa, Latin America and eastern Europe. According to Australia's Age:

"The UN estimates 45 cities will grow by a million or more people in the next decade — 44 of them in developing countries, 10 in India alone. The only city in the rich world to keep pace with that growth rate will be New York. As developing countries attempt to house more people with no more land, by 2030, the UN projects, half of Africa's population will be living in mega-cities. This trend will be echoed elsewhere: two-thirds of Indonesians and 60 per cent of Chinese will be living in cramped urban centres. For how ever poor their housing, the wages they can earn in the city far exceed what is available to them in rural and remote villages."

Worst commutes

One of the keys to happiness, leading psychologists say, is to avoid long commutes.   According to the Texas Transportation Institutes's 2006 Urban Mobility Report, the average commuter in regions with more than one million people spent 47 hours stuck in traffic; 61 hours in regions with more than 3 million.  The 5 cities with the worst commutes are:     Los Angeles where residents average 93 hours stuck in traffic, followed by San Francisco 72 hours, DC 69 hours, Atlanta 67 hours, and Houston 63 hours. Read more here.

Shrinking cities

Lot's of discussion about this around the blogsphere.  I've avoided commenting up until now. That is until I saw USA Today's cover story yesterday while traveling from Detroit back to DC. The story is by Haya Al Nassar one of the best reporters covering urban issues around, and covers efforts in Richmond, St. Louis, Detroit, and Youngstown to focus services and improve quality of life while shrinking in population size.

"Slowly, old American cities that have been in a downward population spiral for a half-century or more are reinventing themselves as, well, smaller cities. They're starting to adopt ... tenets of the burgeoning, European-born "Shrinking Cities" movement. The idea: If cities can grow in a smart way, they can also shrink smartly ... It's a startling admission in a nation that has always equated growth with success. Cities are downsizing by returning abandoned neighborhoods to nature and pulling the plug on expensive services to unpopulated areas. Some have stopped pumping water, running sewer lines and repaving roads in depopulated neighborhoods. They're turning decimated areas into parks, wildlife refuges or bike trails. They're tearing down homes no one is living in and concentrating development where people want to move."

Let me try to put this whole thing in some perspective.  For one, most cities are shrinking. As urban experts have known for years the only thing holding population up in most cities is immigration.  But the real issue is that the focus on "population" as a measure of growth is misleading and misses the point.   My good friend, Carol Coletta, head of CEOs for Cities,  hits the nail on the head, being quoted in the article as saying: "Cities that measure success by population growth have an outdated view of what success is all about."

But there is a bigger issue here. Both our demography and urban and metropolitan structure are undergoing profound transformation.  Cities of a century ago were densely packed with large families, commercial centers and factory complexes.   Of course, since the '50s our population has decentralized. But in the past 20 years our household structure has changed dramatically as a consequence of the second demographic transformation and related trends we have discussed here. Households are smaller; people are postponing marriage; fewer families have children and more of us are single.  At the same time, rising affluence combined with assorted real estate development trends have enabled households to consume much, much more space not just in the suburbs but in the cities as well.

What irks me about the "shrinking cities" moniker is that it mixes up very different sorts of places.   The issues that face, say,  "shrinking DC" or "shrinking San Francisco", which are substituting smaller higher income households for large, lower income ones, are quite different than those that face, say, "shrinking Detroit," or  St. Louis or Youngstown, which continue to lose higher income households not just to surrounding suburbs but to other metros. 

It's not really "shrinking" that's the issue.  Much more fundamental economic and demographic forces are creating different types of cities.  Some shrink, as they gain new higher end economic functions.  Others shrink as their economies falter and they bleed talent.

The real issue is how to we begin to come to grips with these two very different urban futures.   As I wrote in "The Creative Compact" we need a new urban policy that explicitly recognizes these trends.

Wow!!! Savannah ROCKS!!!

Ever since I was a boy I’ve been allowed one Hero per day, and today my Hero is a guy named Roger Moss who sat on a panel with me in Savannah earlier this month. Roger is the Artistic Director for the Savannah Children’s Choir.

The Savannah Children’s Choir sprung out of a coffee-hour conversation at St. Paul’s Episcopal Church between Moss and Managing Director Cuffy Sullivan.  Moss, a baritone, music teacher and actor had originally moved to Savannah to continue in advertising. Savannah provided an environment that allowed  him to leave a career in advertising and pursue his first love, music.  Sullivan had returned to her college town for the quality of life and to raise a family with three musical children. Both discovered there was no community-based children’s choir and saw an unmet community need.

The congregation, with a history of supporting and launching new organizations, agreed to assist the choir’s start-up.  Moss and Sullivan assembled a broad-based board and launched with a week-long summer choir camp that attracted fifty-two children from across the region.  Soon, almost one hundred children from every socio-economic and racial background were auditioning for the forty positions in the choir.  The choir now consists of children ages 6 -14 from a diverse array of backgrounds. 

The Savannah Children’s Choir teaches the children more than music.  Academic excellence is stressed, and each child must maintain a B or better average.  To help achieve this, choir members can choose to participate in free weekly tutorials provided by volunteer teachers.  This reporting period,  100% of SCC members had a B average or better -- 23% had B averages and 77% had A averages. 

Respect and teamwork are also emphasized.  The children work as a team in tackling a variety of music and languages; their debut concert featured songs in Latin, Spanish, Hebrew and English.  Long-term plans include a two-week music camp in summer 2007 and choir tours in and outside of the United States as ambassadors of Savannah.

Hopefully some of our major foundations and civic leaders will look at the Savannah Children’s Choir and initiatives like it as models for use around the country.

posted by Rod

US State Population Estimates From Census

Steven Pedigo, manager of research at GWI, sent us a note over the holiday regarding the new state population estimates from the Census Bureau. According to the Census press release, Arizona (3.6%)  nudged past Nevada (3.5%) as the fastest growing state over the past year and the South and the West continue to dominate the list of growing states.

From the Census Bureau,

Meanwhile, Arizona was the nation’s fastest-growing state over the period, breaking Nevada’s grip on the title, with its population rising 3.6 percent.  Nevada ranked second this time,as its population climbed by 3.5 percent, followed by Idaho (2.6 percent), Georgia (2.6 percent) and Texas (2.5 percent). (See   Table A below.) The South and West again monopolized the list of fastest-growing states with Utah, North Carolina, Colorado, Florida and South Carolina rounding out the top 10. Colorado and South Carolina replaced Delaware and Oregon on the list this year.

According to the estimates, California remains the most populous state with a population of 36.5 million on July 1, 2006. Rounding out the top five states were Texas (23.5 million), New York (19.3 million), Florida (18.1 million) and Illinois (12.8 million).

Other highlights:

• North Carolina replaced New Jersey as the 10th most populous state.  
• The Northeast region grew by only 62,000 people. In contrast, the South grew by 1.5 million and the West by 1 million. The Midwest added 281,000 people.  
• The West was the fastest-growing region, with its population climbing by 1.5 percent. The South followed (1.4 percent), with the Midwest third (0.4 percent) and the Northeast fourth (0.1 percent).  
• The South now accounts for 36 percent of the nation’s total population, with the West comprising 23 percent, the Midwest 22 percent and the Northeast 18 percent.  
• The population estimate for Puerto Rico for July 1, 2006, was 3.9 million, up about 16,000 since July 1, 2005. Puerto Rico’s rate of increase was 0.4 percent.

   

Table A. Leading 10 States/Equivalents by Population Changes: July   1, 2005 to July 1, 2006    

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   

Top 10 Fastest-Growing		Top 10 Numeric Gainers
State	Percent         Change	State	Change
1. Arizona	3.6	1. Texas	579,275
2. Nevada	3.5	2. Florida	321,697
3. Idaho	2.6	3. California	303,402
4. Georgia	2.5	4. Georgia	231,388
5. Texas	2.5	5. Arizona	213,311
6. Utah	2.4	6. North Carolina	184,046
7. North Carolina	2.1	7. Washington	103,899
8. Colorado	1.9	8. Colorado	90,082
9. Florida	1.8	9. Nevada	83,228
10. South Carolina	1.7	10. Tennessee	83,058

posted by David

Does Your Mega Have a Blog?

While cruising around Wendy Water's All About Cities blog I came across a website/blog (The Cascadia Report) that covers the Cascadia Mega-Region that Richard often highlights  as an example of a leading global mega-region. (Our friends out in Tacoma-Pierce County are part of the binational Cascadia Region.)

Does your mega have a blog like the Cascadia Report? Do the people, political/civic leaders, and businesses of your mega have any sense of cohesion or even a passing awareness of the economic/cultural unit they are part of? If there is an awareness of the the greater region, who leads the discussion? Where does it take place?

posted by David

Information Week on IT Talent in 2007

According to a recent story by Marianne Kolbasuk McGee over at Information Week, the IT job market is going to be pretty tight in the coming year. The article reports that "Hiring plans for the first quarter are the strongest they've been in five years, according to a survey of 1,400 CIOs by staffing firm Robert Half Technology. Sixteen percent of CIOs say they'll be hiring in the quarter, while only 2% anticipate cutbacks."

The piece goes on to report that talented IT professionals will see income gains next year with CIO types reporting average pay increases near 4% or 5% and top performers receiving increases of 8% to 10%.

As the chart highlights, the IT market for Q1 2007 appears pretty thick as well, with demand for skills and workers coming from large and diverse segments of the US economy.

posted by David

 

Music Helps Rebirth a London Neighborhood

Jamin Warren has a really interesting piece in today's WSJ (sub required) which highlights the role of live music venues and performances by new artists in the turnaround of a gritty London neighborhood -- Shoreditch.

Full of tales of adaptive reuse of older structures and entrepreneurs and patrons looking for something more authentic -- which they claim the can no longer get in tonier neighborhoods such as Notting Hill.

From the article,

"Two years ago, Ben Heath had an epiphany. The more live music he hosted at his pub Catch, in Shoreditch, the more people came. Formerly an old boxing studio complete with a tattered ring upstairs, the venue "really feels like a New York bar now," says Mr. Heath, who put on a fresh coat of paint this past fall and invested $13,000 on a new sound system.

He also hired a former lead singer from a popular indie rock band to book live talent. Now, Catch is one of the area's hottest venues and business hit a new peak last year with 10% growth...

These days, the buzz is shifting eastward, to the gritty neighborhood of Shoreditch. In doing so, it's transforming this former industrial center located 15 minutes by cab from the City of London into a cultural destination in its own right. Trendy restaurants are opening, as are boutiques carrying cutting-edge designers. New galleries feature the work of reknown artists like Damien Hirst...

The rise of Shoreditch has as much to do with its cheap rents and large loft apartments as its proximity to central London, where many of its young visitors live and work. But perhaps more than anything, it's benefited from the gentrification of other once-fringe neighborhoods like Camden, where the opening of a Virgin Megastore in 2001 and the arrival of expensive apartments has tarnished its cutting-edge image. Similar stories have played out in major U.S. urban centers, too; as New York City's SoHo morphed into a shopping hub and tourist draw, the artists' scene shifted over to Brooklyn neighborhoods like Williamsburg and Dumbo."

So next time you are in London, check out a live show in Shoreditch and watch as a neighborhood responds to the desires of citizens, entrepreneurs, and artists looking for places to do their things. But don't wait too long, I am sure Virgin, Starbucks, and a host of others are already sniffing out the neighborhood.

posted by David

Immigrants: Your country needs them

That's the title of an intriguing new book by Phillippe Legrain.  Here's an excerpt from
Martin Wolf's review in the Financial Times.

In a thought-provoking new book, Philippe Legrain, the British author of Open World, a splendid work on globalisation, takes a bold position: let them all in.  More precisely he says: “It would be best if our borders were completely open. But if that is deemed impossible for now, let them at least be more open. And if even that is not acceptable, let them at least be better regulated.”

Mr. Legrain performs an invaluable service: he makes a good case for the unpopular cause of free flows of people. The book is a superb combination of direct reportage with detailed analysis of the evidence...

We must also recognise that, as Mr. Legrain argues, migration does bring large benefits. The biggest aggregate global gains come from moving people out of bad environments into good ones. But the biggest gains to recipient countries, I suggest, come from greater diversity itself.

Mr. Legrain quotes Richard Florida of George Mason University: “Regional economic growth is powered by creative people, who prefer places that are diverse, tolerant and open to new ideas.” A quarter of the people now working in London were born abroad. It would be nothing like as prosperous or as exciting a place without them.

Toleration of the intolerant must cease where the latter threatens the sustainability of the diverse society itself. Whether it will be possible to achieve this in today’s circumstances is unclear. But there is no doubt about the importance of trying.

In addition to maintaining the very qualities that made it a magnet in the first place, a society must decide how to control the inflow. Mr. Legrain makes a compelling case against the inflexibility of “picking winners” in immigration. My own view has long been that work permits should be auctioned, with the price giving guidance on how many people should be let in. When people are let in, it is also right to help them obtain what is needed to participate in a liberal democracy: above all, the dominant language and some understanding of its institutions and history.

Mr. Legrain is right on two big points: migration cannot be stopped; and it can indeed bring benefits to almost everyone. But it also poses a bigger challenge than he admits. The answer, I believe, is twofold: controlling the borders, however imperfectly; and, still more, insisting on the core values of the host society. The results will be imperfect. But the alternatives of either complete freedom of movement or a fortress are both impossible. What we are left with is the ancient art of compromise.

Tis the season

... to be jolly, right. No wonder my thoughts turn to happiness. Well sort of.  Actually,  it's been on my mind for a while now. Who's Your City has a long section on place and happiness. The short of it that the place you live has a substantial role in your happiness, and what makes you happy with your place and also how your place makes you happy in your life is different than what most people think. 

 Have a look at these great sites/ blogs on the subject.

Authentic Happiness (Martin Seligman)

Happiness Policy and the Fly Bottle (Will Wilkinson).

The Happiness Project (Gretchen Rubin).

Does your place make you happy?  Do tell.

Interview of the month

Robert Toll, the so-called "king of suburban mini-mansions,"  and just about the biggest residential builder in the history of the world, talks to the Wall Street Journal about cities and why he is betting his company's future on them.

"We are following our people. We have been a builder to the baby boom since we began. First that took us into the move-up luxury-home business, then into golf-course resort communities. It has also taken us into the active-adult communities. The city is a combination resort community, but the resort is New York City -- or Chicago or L.A. or Miami. "

WSJ: What does this shift say about baby boomers?

Mr. Toll: It says we are not as our parents were. The baby boomer always wanted more. We are more hip-hop and happening than our parents. We want the sophistication and joy of culture and music that comes with city dwelling -- and doesn't come with sitting in the big home in the burbs watching the day go by while puttering, painting, reading, writing, making flies for fishing, customizing your own golf clubs, stringing your own tennis racket, tending your tropical fish.

It was a rarity 20 years ago to find hedge-fund Johnny making a decision to stay in the city. Home buyers went up to Westchester and out to New Jersey -- back to wherever they came from. It was a rarity to see kids in the city. Now it's not.

What do kids do in the burbs? You ride your bike until you can get your car. You've done the three movies at the plex. Now what? Having had five kids, I'm not sure that it's not more dangerous in the burbs than it is in the city because you are riding your bike in traffic. Or you are driving your car, which is even worse. You go down to the [convenience store] and smoke cigarettes, and the parents sit up with their arms wrapped around their knees, hoping that you come home.

WSJ: Just 10 or 15 years ago, everyone thought cities were dying, and no one wanted to live in them.

Mr. Toll: Absolutely right. But [affluent home buyers] weren't there. We hadn't demanded the services, and we weren't there with the willingness to pay for the services that make that city what it is today. People have come in and insisted, 'I don't want the bum on the sidewalk.' Now, there is no committee meeting. The cops go out and chase him off.

WSJ: Is it easier to build in the suburbs versus the city?

Mr. Toll: It's easier in the city. The approval process is more professional in the city. The experts that you deal with are pretty much doing the assigned job, as opposed to the secret unassigned job to stop the growth, stop