Interesting that I've been saying for about a year that Detroit could be the Paris of the Midwest, and this guy already saw it five years ago. Well, a lot more development has happened since then and it's is full speed ahead. My only complaint is the cheap siding compared to actual Paris. Can't we find a style for Detroit other than just boxy plaid for the new missing middle exteriors?
I really really like his ideas but I think urbanism would benefit of being closer in touch with anthropology especially of “new media”. Talent and creative impact inside social media’s and via communicators is very interesting cultural trend. I believe the seeds of the future changes are there.
Toward the end of the presentation, he suggested that an unexpected candidate might suddenly emerge, a mayor not from a super city but one instead from "the heartland." Sure enough, "Mayor Pete" has become a national phrase. Although Mayor Pete faces pretty long odds, there is at the very least clearly a demand for such candidates.
I like his analysis, but his ideas to fix what is wrong seems to contradict what has caused the problems (I completely agree with Parker Shinn. I think this is why his mom was confused). If universities, hospitals and developers have all this power and haven't begun to fix things yet, what makes you think they would be interested in fixing the problems now? Hospitals and schools have not even begun to fix the problems within their own institutions, such as high tuition or unaffordable healthcare. They have clearly benefited from wealthier people living in these areas (students willing to pay higher tuitions and more people with private insurance making it easier for them to process payments). I do not think schools and hospital have the amount of power he is suggesting. The Amazon deal was not stopped by the supposed liberal and great mayors, but instead by the people living in the community. So to suggest these mayors will fix things when we see they are more interested in giving tax breaks to large companies is stupid. Basically, he is calling on the people who played a hand in causing the problems to fix them. I mean he seriously thinks developers will be on board with helping? Again why would they help after benefiting? And many cities have fewer local activist or working class people to help create a movement because they cannot afford to live in those cities. Perhaps most importantly these cities are becoming more socially liberal, but more economically conservative. Large companies and developers have the most power and they are not looking to fix it. But maybe I've got it all wrong. What do you think?
Interesting that I've been saying for about a year that Detroit could be the Paris of the Midwest, and this guy already saw it five years ago. Well, a lot more development has happened since then and it's is full speed ahead. My only complaint is the cheap siding compared to actual Paris. Can't we find a style for Detroit other than just boxy plaid for the new missing middle exteriors?
I really really like his ideas but I think urbanism would benefit of being closer in touch with anthropology especially of “new media”. Talent and creative impact inside social media’s and via communicators is very interesting cultural trend. I believe the seeds of the future changes are there.
Toward the end of the presentation, he suggested that an unexpected candidate might suddenly emerge, a mayor not from a super city but one instead from "the heartland." Sure enough, "Mayor Pete" has become a national phrase. Although Mayor Pete faces pretty long odds, there is at the very least clearly a demand for such candidates.
Someone just HAD TO get political......smh
Leading Urbanist of our time, both paradigm that he set, one on Creative Class and Urban Crisis carry weight and are valid!
I like his analysis, but his ideas to fix what is wrong seems to contradict what has caused the problems (I completely agree with Parker Shinn. I think this is why his mom was confused). If universities, hospitals and developers have all this power and haven't begun to fix things yet, what makes you think they would be interested in fixing the problems now? Hospitals and schools have not even begun to fix the problems within their own institutions, such as high tuition or unaffordable healthcare. They have clearly benefited from wealthier people living in these areas (students willing to pay higher tuitions and more people with private insurance making it easier for them to process payments). I do not think schools and hospital have the amount of power he is suggesting.
The Amazon deal was not stopped by the supposed liberal and great mayors, but instead by the people living in the community. So to suggest these mayors will fix things when we see they are more interested in giving tax breaks to large companies is stupid. Basically, he is calling on the people who played a hand in causing the problems to fix them.
I mean he seriously thinks developers will be on board with helping? Again why would they help after benefiting? And many cities have fewer local activist or working class people to help create a movement because they cannot afford to live in those cities.
Perhaps most importantly these cities are becoming more socially liberal, but more economically conservative. Large companies and developers have the most power and they are not looking to fix it.
But maybe I've got it all wrong. What do you think?
That was a pretty crappy introduction.
Bohemians……ewwww!
Politics politics politics. I was hoping for a talk on REAL ESTATE!! thumbs down