• Home
  • About us
  • Contact Us
  • Date/Time
  • Login
  • Subscribe

logo

  • Home
  • Politics
  • Economics & Finance
  • World
  • Arts & Books
  • Life
  • Science
  • Philosophy
  • Subscribe
  • Events
Home
  • Home
  • Blogs
  • Politics
  • Economics & Finance
  • World
  • Arts & Books
  • Life
  • Science
  • Philosophy
  • Subscribe
  • Events
  • Home
  • Magazine

Urban myths

Boston reinvented itself when its manufacturing industries declined. Should cities that don’t manage this be abandoned?

by James Crabtree / February 23, 2011 / Leave a comment
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Linkedin
  • Email

Published in March 2011 issue of Prospect Magazine

Boston rising: the city reinvented itself when its manufacturing industries declined. Should cities that don’t manage this be abandoned?


Few recent proposals to boost growth have gone down as badly as shutting Sunderland. Yet in 2008, the centre-right think tank Policy Exchange was condemned for a publication that appeared to say just that. The idea of encouraging struggling towns to decline further might seem crazy. But behind it lies the work of the American economist Edward Glaeser, whose controversial thinking holds important clues about how to restart Britain’s faltering economy.

Those trying to cobble together a growth plan for the coalition are unlikely to have Policy Exchange’s report high on their reading list, but its argument is more reasonable than it at first appears. Much public money is spent propping up fading towns and cities, like Sunderland or Liverpool. Much better, the report argued, to push development in places where people and businesses actually want to move to or set up shop, like Cambridge or Leeds.

The conclusion angered both sides: the growth areas feared over-development, while Policy Exchange’s director still has an angry letter from Sunderland council framed on his desk. Glaeser himself won similar opprobrium in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina for arguing against spending billions to rebuild New Orleans—a corrupt city with a grim track record of providing for its poorer residents—in favour of giving flood victims a generous grant to relocate elsewhere. The first loyalty of the state, he said, should be to people, not places.

Yet for someone happy to see cities decline, Glaeser’s research is actually something of an academic love letter to the “magic” of urbanism; a paean now condensed into his first book, Triumph of the City, published in March. Tall, dense, chaotic urban centres, he says, are more innovative, vibrant and environmentally friendly than rural or suburban commu…

YOU’VE HIT THE LIMIT

You have now reached your limit of 3 free articles in the last 30 days.
But don’t worry! You can get another 7 articles absolutely free, simply by entering your email address in the box below.

When you register we’ll also send you a free e-book—Writing with punch—which includes some of the finest writing from our archive of 22 years. And we’ll also send you a weekly newsletter with the best new ideas in politics and philosophy of culture, which you can of course unsubscribe from at any time







Prospect may process your personal information for our legitimate business purposes, to provide you with our newsletter, subscription offers and other relevant information.

Click to learn more about these interests and how we use your data. You will be able to object to this processing on the next page and in all our communications.

18435380505c70642464dfc2.96387870

Go to comments

Related articles

Share with friends
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Linkedin
  • Email

Comments

  1. Edward Harkins
    March 4, 2011 at 13:34
    James Crabtree utilises his review of the book to, at the very least, infer favourable consideration for some of the contentious material published on the same theme by the Policy Exchange. Of the Policy Exchange’s report, James Crabtree opinions that, “its argument is more reasonable than it at first appears.” Others will hold a different opinion – especially if they re-read the report and the others published around the same time by the Exchange. In parts of the argument, there are elements of unreasonableness, and in some parts, almost irrationality. The Exchange's argument remains, in essence, that we literally plan abandonment of much of what constitutes the UK’s large cities, such as Liverpool. We are then to move in ever more concentrated numbers to the likes of Cambridge and Oxford (made possible by dismantling and ‘liberalising’ the entire planning and conservation system for those latter locations). It may be that there is a growing drift or malaise among some of the players and commentators in the UK's regeneration and development sectors. This is expressed, variously, as a dislike of the term regeneration with its ‘uninspiring’ connotations of poverty and decay, or as a need for public policy to de-prioritise the old and troubled and instead pursue only growth, perceived success and the new and the opportunist. Fine and well at a superficial level; but an untenable basis for public policy, sustainable economic growth and civic cohesion in a highly urbanised society such as the UK. The latter day ‘abandoners’ need to revisit (or visit first time?) why the regeneration perspective gained credence in the UK in the post WW2 period. It was not least because the-then players and commentators saw at close hand how obsolete, unattractive, unhealthy and downright awful our towns and cities had become without adequate public policy and competent governance. The inadequacies and failures of the earlier responses to that predicament have been perceived. The lessons might include, above all, that the state can lead, but must act alongside and in support of a private sector where there are capable and responsible private sector partners (see Infrastructure UK report of Oct 2010 for signposts of the possible in one field). Another lesson is that the state must support and work through, and with, client communities to help them assimilate and respond to the need for change and renewal – in the words of development and planning practitioner, Les Huckfield, ‘things that are embedded in the community work’. I had the good fortune to attend the recent lecture at University of Glasgow on the Detroit experience by visiting Professor George Galster, (Carnegie Trust Centenary Professor). Our conclusion was that many Detroit people, all in all, would probably be delighted to be in the position that Glasgow now finds itself in – notwithstanding all the challenges and problems that beset Glasgow. I suggest that the differing outcomes for these cities reflect the successive failures of the USA to address many of its urban problems in the ways employed by the UK. There has to be public policy that includes intervention by a genuinely partnering state where there is collective recognition of market failure (an erroneous term, since it usually refers to markets that continue to work well – but at a human or environmental cost that a civilised society will find unacceptable). If some players and commentators in the UK today are incapable of applying the lessons, and of working with others to identify, promote and facilitate the change and renewal that is needed, and instead all they offer is advice to abandon the challenge of regeneration, they would do well to themselves abandon the field – and not have the rest of us abandon entire communities the length and breadth of the UK.
  2. Rob Stevens
    March 7, 2011 at 15:55
    This is more libertarian anti-planning 'place-making localism': even if of an apparently progressive slant. "Why, he asks, do some places grow, while others don’t?" - the obvious answer would be, 'because there's a willingness to let them die (on behalf of local and national government and business), and an ability for their suffering populace to leave for pastures new'. It simply is not feasible- in a UK context- to argue that settlement upon settlement will crash and burn only to be angelically replaced by new settlements that rise to ascendency and replace them in another geographical place. In fact, in so far as that is an accurate snapshot at all of the US it is a past one and does not particularly reflect the outsourcing and off-shoring reality of the last 25 years. It’s hard to move to where the new jobs are when they aren’t actually in the USA... Sure people do still 'move to work' in the USA far more than in the UK (and even more so than in Europe where the 'ties that bind’ and social capital are far more important existentially- both on a communitarian and individual basis). That is part of the collective American legend along with its notion of philosophical (and ultimately socio-economic) "exceptionalism"- the notion that is having such a difficult time in the face of the global economic centrifugal forces that tilt ever remorselessly eastwards. It is also due to the fact of course that the USA is FORTY times the size of the UK- models of labour mobility do not travel well in such unfortunate and unhelpful factual contexts. Even in the post war boom western economic heyday the regional and urban policy of the UK reflected the fact that it is very difficult to move around this country to where local economies are buoyant. In the main because there is not the housing supply (nimbies- and this won’t change under localism no matter what the financial bribes, er, incentives); or because the costs of living are restrictive (small over heated and over demanded local markets): both elements that are not the fault of local planners or the planning system by the way. Places like Middlesbrough- and small western nations like the UK- simply do not have the luxury of a muscular ‘policy exchange’/ Glaeser style policy toolkit of ‘let the place die and let the people move from the corpse’. Indeed this of course does not really exist in the USA now either (in so far as it ever did in such a simplistic tabloid manner). The negative externalities of not intervening are already too high when we reflect upon the industrial ‘policy’ of the 1979 to 1986 period- an epoch from which many UK settlements have not yet recovered from almost 30 years later- let alone from the reflective vantage point of 2020 looking back on the ‘pulling-up-the-drawbridge’ era of the Tory-Lib Dem period in office inspired by the 'genius intellect' of an American academic... So- to be frank- whether this guy and his associates have the ear of the current UK administration or not- the fact that they are so incorrect in both analyses and prescriptions needs to be rigorously communicated.
  3. Julian Dobson
    March 10, 2011 at 23:43
    I'd echo much of what Edward and Rob have said. One other thing, not mentioned so far: UK cities' natural resources are much more constrained than in many parts of the US. This prompted the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution to call for a regional economic policy in order to lesson the growing strain on the southeast. The coalition government's approach, of course, is to abolish the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution.
  4. michael reardon
    March 14, 2011 at 23:05
    While I would like to agree with Rob, I am worried that we haven't been able (even after 13 years of relatively benign public policy ) to identify and build a future for the people of Stoke on Trent and Burnley that will persuade the more mobile and 'able to choose' residents of those towns to stay put and contribute.And within Manchester the agglomeration effect is felt even more keenly as people and jobs increasingly choose to locate in the city centre and southwards, leaving areas of north and east Manchester still searching for a renewed sense of purpose .Our approaches to urban planning and regeneration are all predicated on the existence of work and employment within and across existing patterns of settlement and the transportation that reflects that.In many northern towns and cities that work and transportation is at best partial, at worse non existent.That is not to argue for abandonment as a policy prescription, but left to the market that could be the outcome .
  5. James Smith
    March 20, 2011 at 21:02
    May I draw your attention to a city that for many years was in Detroit's shadow: Toronto. Similar location & climate three & half hours apart, prior to the riots in the '60's Motown was the bigger & richer of the two, now Toronto often get placed on Top 20 lists of cities of the world to live in, why? Race relations has something to do with it, Detroit imported the racism of the south prior to the 2nd World War & so called White Flight just made it worse. Toronto has made multiculturalism work & immigrants have changed the city for the better; but it goes deeper. As Toronto's manufactures moved to the suburbs or off shore, the economy changed & the creative, service, finance & other soft businesses grew. In part dumb luck, in part good(ish) urban planning, Toronto has prospered remaining the cultural capital or English Canada, & financial capital of the country despite the movement of people & investment west. Detroit had nothing like this to fall back on, as the US car industry has become more & more morbid, the city has shrunk, become more & more poor & dangerous. The question, should we let these cities die is disingenuous. As what is happing now in Detroit could be a model for other cities; if they can pull it off. Locals & new immigrants are involved in some interesting experiments in urban agriculture & artist co-ops. Land & housing is cheep, with a little support they can remake the city. My suggestion is that rather than grand schemes, if locals are given a little seed money, any blighted urban landscape can be remade; even the vacuous suburban landscape of North American Cities.
  6. Edward Harkins
    March 21, 2011 at 18:33
    James you make telling points about Toronto. Some years ago I had the privilege of mentoring a young Canadian research student who was doing comparative work on Toronto and Glasgow (Scotland, UK). I learned, consequently, much about the endeavors of all sectors in Toronto to face up to the challenge of decline, and indeed reverse that decline. I like your points about giving assets to the local people. The people are a remaining great resource for Detroit. Along this theme there are a couple of specific points made by Glaeser that I think he gets right; first that the municipal authorities in declining cities are commonly deluded into thinking that ‘great projects’ are what will save their city (Atlanta Olympics anyone?). The second is that those same authorities need to comprehend that interim investment for the amelioration of the worst effects of decline should go to poor people rather than (the fabric of) poor places. But I would not agree if he were to take that a step further, and say it’s one or the other. A properly empowered and resourced community will eventually be capable of moving onto identifying the most appropriate and efficacious investments for their ‘place’.

Prospect's free newsletter

The big ideas that are shaping our world—straight to your inbox. PLUS a free e-book and 7 articles of your choosing on the Prospect website.

Prospect may process your personal information for our legitimate business purposes, to provide you with our newsletter, subscription offers and other relevant information. Click here to learn more about these purposes and how we use your data. You will be able to opt-out of further contact on the next page and in all our communications.

This Month's Magazine

Perspiciatis unde omnis iste natus.

Prospect is the leading magazine of ideas. Each month it is packed with the finest writing on politics, culture, economics and ideas. Subscribe today and join the debate.

Subscribe

Most Popular

  • Read
  • Commented

This proposal for breaking the Brexit deadlock deserves serious consideration

Did the SDP really split the left in 1983?

The Duel: Has modern architecture ruined Britain?

Nonsense economics: the rise of modern monetary theory

The Conservative Party has a problem—it’s no longer conservative

5 Comments

The impact of Brexit on services has not received nearly enough attention

2 Comments

Even if Britain stays in Europe, we need a new constitutional settlement

2 Comments

If May's deal is in flames, Labour should not seek to put out the fire

2 Comments

The naïve optimism of Liam Fox

2 Comments

About this author

James Crabtree
James Crabtree is comment editor of the FT
More by this author

More by James Crabtree

End of the road
April 19, 2011
Top tanks
November 17, 2010
Reading the tea leaves
October 30, 2010

Next Prospect events

  • Details

    Prospect Book Club—Diarmaid MacCulloch

    London, 2019-05-20

  • Details

    Prospect Book Club—Sue Prideaux

    2019-04-15

  • Details

    Prospect Book Club—Andrew Roberts

    2019-03-14

See more events

Sponsored features

  • The future of transport: taking Britain into the fast lane

  • Reforming the pension system to work for the many

  • Putting savers in the driving seat: getting the pensions dashboard right

  • To fix the housing crisis we need fresh thinking

  • Tata Steel UK: Driving innovation for the future of mobility

PrimeTime

The magazine is owned and supported by the Resolution Group, as part of its not-for-profit, public interest activities.

Follow us
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google+
  • RSS

Editorial

Editor: Tom Clark
Deputy Editor: Steve Bloomfield
Managing Editor (Arts & Books): Sameer Rahim
Head of Digital: Stephanie Boland
Deputy Digital Editor (Political Correspondent): Alex Dean
Creative Director: Mike Turner
Production Editor & Designer: Chris Tilbury
US Writer-at-Large: Sam Tanenhaus

Commercial

Commercial Director: Alex Stevenson
Head of Marketing: Paul Mortimer
Marketing and Circulations Executive: James Hawkins
Programme Coordinator: Oliver James Ward
Head of Advertising Sales: Adam Kinlan 020 3372 2934
Senior Account Manager: Dominic Slonecki 0203 372 2972

  • Home
  • Advertising
  • Contact Us
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms and Conditions
  • Acceptable Use Policy
© Prospect Publishing Limited
×
Login
Login with your subscriber account:
You need a valid subscription to login.
I am
Remember Me


Forgotten password?

Or enter with social networking:
Login to post comments using social media accounts.
  • With Twitter
  • Connect
  • With Google +
×
Register Now

Register today and access any 7 articles on the Prospect’s website for FREE in the next 30 days..
PLUS find out about the big ideas that will shape our world—with Prospect’s FREE newsletter sent to your inbox. We'll even send you our e-book—Writing with punch—with some of the finest writing from the Prospect archive, at no extra cost!

Not Now, Thanks

Prospect may process your personal information for our legitimate business purposes, to provide you with our newsletter, subscription offers and other relevant information.

Click to learn more about these interests and how we use your data. You will be able to object to this processing on the next page and in all our communications.

×
You’ve got full access!

It looks like you are a Prospect subscriber.

Prospect subscribers have full access to all the great content on our website, including our entire archive.

If you do not know your login details, simply close this pop-up and click 'Login' on the black bar at the top of the screen, then click 'Forgotten password?', enter your email address and press 'Submit'. Your password will then be emailed to you.

Thank you for your support of Prospect and we hope that you enjoy everything the site has to offer.

This site uses cookies to improve the user experience. By using this site, you agree that we can set and use these cookies. For more details on the cookies we use and how to manage them, see our Privacy and Cookie Policy.