A week or so ago, a blog post by Joel Kotkin was making some waves among economic geographers, urban studies people, etc., for its rather alarming headline proclaiming that "America's Young and Restless Will Abandon the Cities for the Suburbs." While I didn't dispute the actual, less shocking, conclusions of the piece - 'suburbs' are increasingly important job centers and even people who were hip in their 20s may still leave urban cores to raise families in their 30s - like many people I was wary of the article's phrasing, the misinterpretation implied by the headline (that suddenly the hip, creative youth of America were more attracted to white picket fences than to diversity and loft-dwelling), and the ever-worrisome definitional problems surrounding 'suburbs versus city debates' (not just a problem of Professor Kotkin's, though he has been criticized on this count before). Still, I filed it away as an interesting counterpoint to the assumptions of creative class dogma and went on with my life.
But THEN, this weekend, a friend forwarded me Kotkin's latest, and this one struck a cord. The article, an op-ed piece for the Wall Street Journal entitled "How Los Angeles Lost its Mojo," promised another neo-traditionalist, pro-business critique of the too-urban, too-dense progressive urban policies that he views as the wrong fit for Western cities like L.A. Now, I too am a believer that the success of Los Angeles lies in its exceptionalism and dislike the idea that the city should try to copy New York in the form of things like "LA Live", but Kotkin and I are polar opposites when it comes to being fans of walkability, density, transit, etc., so I knew that I would have my differences with some of his policy proscriptions. What surprised me, however, was how openly Kotkin shows his ideological cards here (perhaps it was inspired by the friendly audience of the Journal's editorial pages).
Right up front, sounding for all the world like Harry Chandler, he praises the "pleasant climate and a business-dominated political economy" of the early 20th century -- which was one of the the most vicious and violently anti-union, anti-labor, anti-mexican, and pro-turning-L.A.-into-a-banana-republic periods in American history. He moves on to praise the "pro-business" Riordan/Wilson years, which he ties to L.A.'s economic successes of the late 1990s, before proceeding to smear current-Mayor Villaraigosa for the sorry corporate business climate and other economic troubles of today...




