The headline of Richard Florida’s most recent essay on City Lab could just as easily read: “People Who Can Live Anywhere Like Living Near Cool Stuff” or “Rich People Like to Have Stuff to Spend Their Money On Nearby” or even “Poor People Can’t Afford to Live in the Same Places Rich People Want to Live”. I suppose there’s some nuance there when you start to break it down but that is the gist of the article.
When I teach young people about my experiences in Spain I have to start by explaining to them that the well-to-do often live in the center of Spanish cities because they want easy access to all of the things that the center city provides. At some point I say “think New York City and Manhattan” and they kinda sorta get it. If I transition to a more local example; like me and Springfield, the concept usually gets lost because it runs counter to fact.
There’s some irony imbedded in the reasons for that.
Even if someone of my income could afford to live in the trendier parts of Manhattan near all of the amenities that make it special, I couldn’t afford to see Broadway shows or dine at the trendiest places on a daily or weekly basis. The City Lab piece uses the Metropolitan Opera as its example of a cultural destination which lures the rich into living in the center city; at even $100 a ticket(i.e. cheap seats) my wife and I are not going on a regular basis unless that is our only focus because it wouldn’t leave a whole lot extra in the budget to do any of the other things available for me to do in Manhattan. So even if the working class and middle class live surrounded by all of the culture of superstar cities, access to biggest and best would be limited anyway, if not by proximity then by cost.
By contrast not only are urban centers in places like Springfield actually inexpensive places to live, the cultural amenities like concerts, sporting events, and even restaurants are priced at much more reasonable levels meaning that, if people wished to do so, the easy access provided by proximity could really be taken advantage of, even by those not in the 1% or the 10%.
I don’t want to be misunderstood here, having lived in Madrid, for example, I know that cultural capitals also provide interesting yet inexpensive experiences as well, but those are not the types of amenities that the article is addressing. In my experience both in Spain and here in New England there are always cultural experiences to be had which are both wonderful and cheap.
That said, the New York Philharmonic is better than the Springfield Symphony, the Rangers would destroy the Thunderbirds, and of course New York dining has a variety and excellence that a third tier city could never match (New York pizza on the other hand is way overrated…Sicilian>NY slice), but the Springfield Symphony experience is much better than not being able to go to the symphony, the Thunderbirds provide a greater opportunity to cheer for the home team and feel the rush that comes with a goal being scored than sitting at home in front of the tv, and interesting and unique gastronomical experiences can only be had when one can afford to pay the bill.
None of this touches on the most interesting question the essay leaves unmentioned however; why is the magnetic affect of cultural institutions in non-superstar cities so much less discernible? Within a 15 walk of my house there is an arena which houses the region’s sole professional sports franchise, the auditorium where the only professional symphony orchestra performs over a dozen concerts a year, a world famous sports museum celebrating the second most popular team sport in the world, a national Historic site and museum which are part of the National Park system, a fine arts museum with works from the medieval era through the 20th century with works from many of history’s best known artists, another museum with one of the largest collections of Asian Art in North America, a brand new children’s museum celebrating, arguably, the most famous American children’s author of all time, a science museum, a local history museum, one of the nation’s most impressive libraries, dozens of restaurants, bars, and clubs, and, now, a brand new resort-casino operated by the most famous casino brand in the United States.
But not only is no one moving here from Longmeadow or Wilbraham, but not even one of the city’s biggest boosters lives downtown. Not one. This essay is not about chiding them, (I’ve already written that one with the impact being the one who did live here quit his job and moved away: Go me!) it’s about contemplating why it is as it is.
Is it just too easy in a smaller city to get to any event, experience any amenity, and scurry back home? Are the suburban communities and rural towns of such high quality that our urban amenities can’t compete with what they provide at their scale?
It isn’t availability of high quality housing of any type in the center city; I sometimes call this place where I live a “mansion”, but apart from the basement apartment it has barely 3,000 sq ft of living space, there are homes 3x that size a five minute walk from here available for the same cost as a colonial in Longmeadow. Apart from that there are housing types of every sort in the core neighborhoods. It isn’t the schools either; the wealthy have private schools aplenty to send their kids to, and most of the big players don’t have school age kids.
A really good church friend of mine from back in my teen years told me once that he and his friends in the rural areas between Springfield and Worcester MUCH preferred the latter because Springfield was an “Orb” town. “What do you mean Orb?” I asked.
It’s “Bro” backwards.
Does the heavy presence of racial minorities, or even just the lack of Whites in the core of the city present too great a psychological barrier?
Is the downtown even close to attracting anyone but the urban pioneer types and the occasional adventurous member of the middle class?
The question at the heart of it all is, are we in any way close to a change in the zeitgeist? Are we one restaurant, one club, or even one dollar per gallon in the price of gas away from seeing the effect amenities have on who resides in the core of the superstar cities visit an average city like this one?
Richard Florida laments that quality cultural experiences cause people to want to live near them because of his fear of gentrification. I reject that notion completely. Given the extant buildings and the empty plots of land available in Springfield’s core neighborhoods we could house every resident of Longmeadow and Wilbraham without displacing a single current resident; yet I would hasten to point out that I still have never met a poor minority resident of this neighborhood who wanted to stay here anyway; as I have stated before I cannot fathom fighting against the displacement of people who not only aren’t being displaced, but would like to be!
A successful downtown needs a mix of demographics certainly, and the most under-represented here are the well off. The art is here, the food is here, the buildings are here. It’s interesting that those can be enough to attract people in one place, but not at all in another.
Steve – great post and commentary. I suspect that for most people in places outside the superstar cities, the suburban dream is still by far the dominant ideal. It’s not for me or for you, but that’s the reality for most Americans. Big ships turn very slowly,
I think one question for you to ponder is imagining how you will feel when it actually turns in Springifeld. In places I’ve lived in, it’s really surprised me how quickly the narrative has shifted for many long-term city boosters, and how anti-change and development they can become. Of course all development isn’t good development, but I find this to be a strange commentary on our culture.
Thanks for the thoughtful essay. I think we will get to a tipping point, but I have no idea when that will be. Let’s hope that when it does happen we can make room for everyone.
Side note: when my wife and I were living in uptown Manhattan in the 1990s, we used to go to the met pretty often. We could afford it because they had standing room tickets available for less than ten bucks—and the city opera and the two ballet companies charged even less. That’s maybe the only thing I miss about New York!
If a person has $10s of millions, go ahead & live the dream in NYC, SF, DC, Boston. It’s the next tier down of wealth that I really don’t understand. Those top tier cities are chock full of people with pretty significant wealth, say $500K to $2M, but the high COL means they might be living in a 1BD condo.
While in a city like Milwaukee, that level of wealth could put them comfortably in one of the most beautiful & highly amenitized neighborhoods, patrons of the arts, behind the backstop for MLB games, a vigorous social calendar, etc. etc. OR they could carry over their current urban lifestyle but with considerably more flexibility from being really well established financially.
Basically, there’s no rational reason to be a struggling half-millionaire in the USA, even if a dyed in the wool urbanist.
Well said! My sense is the lure of true walkability and the continuous city that supports it (see Daniel Solomon’s recent book ‘Love versus Hate: Housing and the City’ for a stimulating discussion of the “continuous city” vs. the “ruptured city”) is only catching on to a very limited extent in American culture.
I too am astonished by how many great urban places go unappreciated and underutilized, and moreover, continue to be damaged by poor city and transportation planning. Eventually, people may be return to the center in larger numbers, if only because they must. But I doubt this will happen in my time frame.
To add some data to what you are seeing anecdotally (sorry this is going to be grim):
https://www.idiosyncraticwhisk.com/2018/12/housing-part-336-incomes-and-housing.html
This post by Idiosyncratic Whisk breaks down housing prices for 64 MSAs at US median income, one standard deviation above, and one below. Now the author doesn’t provide the list of cities measured, but want to guess where Springfield likely falls?
In any case, in a generalized sense, in the superstar cities, home prices are rising and people don’t care. In the loser cities, home prices are falling and people aren’t interested in moving there. Apparently people are way more concerned about low future incomes than they are about high future prices. Or anything that Richard Florida thinks they are.
You suggest that in a place were you can buy a median home at 2.4X median income vs 3.5X for US and 4.5X for superstar would have a higher standard of living and maybe that’s true, but apparently those ratios aren’t quite out of whack enough to drive much (any) population movement in their favor,
It also shows how coupled they were until about 2000, and you say that currently we are in an aberration. Good luck waiting for that to correct though.
Also for those hoping for crash to bring these back in line, the data is showing that it’ll mostly just crush the low end even more.
My solution for them would be to do anything to drive up incomes, like $15 minimum wage. Or they can just sit on what they have, hope that better standard of living and more income to spend on consumables eventually drives some growth.
But if that doesn’t work, then how much tax just for basics can you derive on places where home prices are barely 2X (already low) income?
Also, if it’s this grim for cities one standard deviation below the US median income, just think how bad it is for those even lower.
To me all of that is beside the point; I understand why hedge fund millionaires and superstar actors don’t live in downtown Springfield, to me it’s the 50 something podiatrist with a schoolteacher wife making $250,000 between the two of them and no kids. They’re stuck here, it’s where the feet and the schoolkids are, they can get a nice place for $150,000, hit the museum galas and concerts, take a train to Penn out of Union Station or Grand Central via CT/Rail and pay pennies in property taxes…but they stay in the ‘burbs, drive in to do the aforementioned stuff and continue to pay 3-4x in property tax what they would pay here.
Springfield (MSA)is almost exactly dead center as far as median household income goes: below avg for New England but not for the nation.
I went on Zillow to look at homes for sale in downtown Springfield. The inventory really isn’t very large for homes close to the big attractions, but this gorgeous shingle-style house caught my eye. It’s available for about $30,000 less than I recently sold my little 2-bedroom condo in downtown Knoxville for. Mind boggling.
https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/95-Ingersoll-Grv-Springfield-MA-01109/56215527_zpid/
As to what might be the tipping point for Springfield, the improvements in outdoor dining reported here probably nudge you closer: https://courbanize.com/projects/springfield-tdi/updates
Outdoor dining is the secret weapon of urban development.
On the other hand, the renovation of Stearns Square and Duryea Way look like missed opportunities. They look like bland “meh” spaces that could have been better designed for attracting lots of people by including a performance stage, outdoor movie screen, outdoor fitness equipment, outdoor ping pong, bocce, and stands for food vendors. Basically, they had a chance to create a dynamic public space like Bryant Park in NYC but ended up with a nondescript space.
I’m just speculating here, but maybe all the people who want the amenities also want to live around other people who want the amenities? The problem for smaller cities like Springfield — or, on a different level, Greenville, NC, where I live — is that the people who like art, culture, etc. come here, see nobody like themselves, and figure that they’d better just pay whatever it takes to stay in Brooklyn or Cambridge; people who grew up there, in the suburbs, have no incentive to come home after college, particularly because NY and Boston (or here, Raleigh) are so close. So the people who are left — your podiatrist — are people who don’t particularly prioritize those amenities that you (and Florida’s wealthy people) prioritize. From my perspective they’re boring people, but A) it takes all kinds, and B) this gets into a bigger problem with American culture and its persistent anti-intellectualism.
Yes! The podiatrist might move in if 50 other people did, and they all would if the others would jump in first. I think that plays a part.