tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12509286.post5747731660649801239..comments2024-03-01T07:43:16.529-06:00Comments on Smart City Memphis: A Reply To Joel KotkinUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12509286.post-27579126495533969222007-12-03T12:51:00.000-06:002007-12-03T12:51:00.000-06:00i admit that i am not fully aware of the history o...i admit that i am not fully aware of the history of the debaters. the article in the journal is not in disagreement, in my opinion, but a challenge. i read that the mere luring of young, professionals is not enough to sustain a city, in this case city referring to (urban core) not the surrounding burbs. the real need (challenge) posed by the author is how do you retain these people inside the city - defined as the urban core. it seems that is the very same argument that i have read on this blog. i would tend to agree with the author of the journal editorial, if you are defining (city) as an urban core than it is only fair to measure the real growth of the urban core. let's say, memphis did an amazing job at recruiting the creative class, dream with me here, and those young people left for the suburbs when they hit the age of 33. would memphis the city (urban core) be any better than before the recruitment of the creative class? i would argue that this is what happens now. memphis has many young professionals in this age demographic but very few live in the city. i know the premise is the "creative class" is not solely defined by the age demographic but the editorial makes a good point. the "creative class" are still people with fears, prejudices and safety concerns. i think the author was pointing out the aforementioned concerns as the reasons people leave for the burbs. noone, "creative class" or other wants to be a part of a social experiment with their children. if we want to attract people to the urban core then we need to provide all of the services that go along with healthy communities, not just greenways and bike trails.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12509286.post-66795561373473488082007-12-02T09:46:00.000-06:002007-12-02T09:46:00.000-06:00Great response. And,just a snarky remark to your ...Great response. And,just a snarky remark to your rhetorical query about young parents and lattes? Tried to navigate the strollers at any cafe in the last few years? Yipes!<BR/><BR/>I, too, am more than a bit disturbed that something as vague as "family-friendly" is becoming an exclusive descriptor and that there are again people attempting to ghettoize those adults who have chosen not to have families from those that have; not to mention, the gross assumption that all families wish for a separate, suburban lifestyle. <BR/><BR/>Too much to get into now when I am barely awake, but the entire message is troubling on a larger scale than simple economic/community development.kristinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04851868723928054153noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12509286.post-52266828777230502132007-12-01T16:10:00.000-06:002007-12-01T16:10:00.000-06:00Good point, Brian, and given more clout by your ex...Good point, Brian, and given more clout by your expertise in the field.Smart City Consultinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13985783340016474051noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12509286.post-54539224256497362702007-12-01T12:58:00.000-06:002007-12-01T12:58:00.000-06:00Well said. While this whole Kotkin vs. Florida deb...Well said. While this whole Kotkin vs. Florida debate turned overblown long ago, it does bother me to see the term "family-friendly" making new inroads into the world of community and economic development. It's ridiculous enough to see it dominate national politics, but let's do what we can to limit its reach. I would really like to avoid the day when we'll be talking incentive policies for attracting Chuck E. Cheese.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com