I don’t know about you, but I prefer innovative thinking to produce good results. Michigan’s abject failure to do what’s necessary, i.e. promote economic diversity, is not excused by the fact that it tried to implement solutions right out of some consultant’s playbook. If anything, it’s an aggravating circumstance: it shows that Michigan can’t tell when it’s being sold a bill of goods.

The absence of a formal Federal industrial policy should not diminish state efforts to do something to try and attract the interest of talent and investors. It’s so typically Midwestern to trash innovative thinking. And boring.

I think the affects of globalism on the Midwest are analogous to the invasive and traumatic affects that urban renewal had on communities, ala Jane Jacobs in “The Death and Life of Great American Cities.” Only now there has been no building or significant Federal investment to replace what was lost. At least with urban renewal way back when, something was built to “improve” previous conditions. Not so lucky this time around.

The mindset that globalsim is somehow inevitable is enormously destructive for Midwestern communities — especially for the political classes. I may be wrong, but to borrow a phase from my mother, a Missouri farm girl, the chickens are about ready to come home to roost.

That was never the intent of the “Cool Cities” program. The program, unfortunately, became an easy target for opponents of Governor Granholm, who used it as an example of out-of-control government spending on “trying to be cool” instead of on rebuilding the Michigan economy. The reality is that it was a very modest program that had some very successful projects that came out of the funds that were spent. While the name is easy to mock, I think most of the goals of the program are consistent with what successful urban areas have pursued.

It seems like many agree that Florida takes some good concepts and overplays/overhypes them. Yes, educational institutions are great anchors around which to build economies and rebuild neighborhoods. However, if you don’t have a big one, or several, and you don’t have a reason for tech to come to your town, what’s the take-away?

The danger is that you fall into the trap like Michigan, which did it’s “Cool Cities” program. Building a playhouse and a bike trail in downtown Flint or Kalamazoo isn’t going to make it the next Austin.

Aaron, it would be interesting to see your take on the new Brookings State of Metro America. They do an in-depth study of the top 100 metros, pull out meta-trends, and also classify metros by several different groupings. This grouping schema is one of the best I have seen so far, much better than “Tust Belt” vs “Sun Belt”. Looking at these groupings, it’s clear that Florida’s vision just doesn’t apply to many cities in the U.S.

True, California wasn’t the only place that benefitted from the post-World War II boom in federal spending on things like R & D, but it benefitted much more so than other places in the United States. The trans-Mississippi American West generally was the site of considerable federal investment since the mid-19th century, and California particularly so.

1) Most importantly Richard Florida is betting on top talent and the places (Chicago, Universities, etc) and organizations (non-profits, tech, etc.) where this talent congregates to make the future happen.

2) Florida uses Pittsburgh long term grass roots efforts as a model on how a city can transform itself over time – like in 30 years.

3) Florida sees distances shrinking due to high speed rail (a big proponent) and modern telecommunications. This means that the Midwest mega-urban region Chi-Pitts is not an intellectual category or a buzzword but, to Florida, it is instead an actual economic unit that will continue to further integrate over time.

4) Florida thinks that many of the smaller rust belt cities, like the old mill towns, will be very difficult to save.

So what do you get if you combine all 4 ideas? It seems to me you get the urban Midwest (Chi-Pitts) replicating the pattern of the Northeast Corridor, or what Florida calls Bos-Wash, within a single generation (2030). This is my analogy and Florida does not draw this parallel in the book. This is my interpretation of how it looks to play out.

Chicago will continue to dominate the region acting just like New York does and if you just extend that analogy outwards you get the rest of Chi-Pitts. Places like the Detroit Metro Area and Cleveland probably connected by high speed rail and teleconferencing, become like Philly, gritty satellite cities of Chicago long on the upswing. Milwaukee becomes like Hoboken. Ann Arbor and similar universities towns would continue to generate an increasing region of tech and other start-ups just like the zone currently around Princeton and to a lesser extent Yale. Ideally perhaps a Columbus or a Madison stages a break out in the next 20 years and becomes a proto-Boston/Austin. In any case, the state capitals, as well as the many Meds and Eds centers, would replace Washington DC as the government boom towns. Also many of the failed industrial towns like the failed industrial cities that dot the current Bos-Wash Zone will continue to be problem areas. Thus like Chicago is the cheaper New York, Chi-Pitts becomes the cheaper Bos-Wash. This would be a true transformation of the region.

This is certainly a very plausible, and on the whole, a very positive vision for the Midwest.

My take is that I am a bit skeptical that Florida’s vision will come to pass. Having places that attract talent is always good, but it is hardly always transformative in the ways that I think Florida is counting on. Also I think the Midwest maybe still too diffuse, even with some further future integration, for this vision to emerge in the next 20-30 years.

Despite my objections, the quicker technology and economic integration advance, the more likely Florida’s urban vision becomes.

Friedman’s basic point in “the World is Flat” is that the world is more interconnected. But is there anyone who doesnt believe that? To be blunt, the only thing keeping Friedman’s book from seeming like its just stating the obvious is his gimmick of saying that “the world is flat”.

Its the same with florida. does anyone NOT think that cities should try to attract well educated people ? But what Florida does is come up with the term “creative Class”. But other than a new term and some new phrases , he basiclly seems to just be stating the obvious.There just seems to be too many buzzwords .

I will admit to not reading his books. But i have read several of his articles in The Atlantic Monthly and other places.

My final criticism of Florida is the fact that he seems to think that the entire “creative Class” is only made up of hipsters between the ages of 20 -40.

At least where i live [Baltimore City] there are a lot of the “Creative Class” moving into the City. But when they have children they move right back out. Not every educated proffessional fits into MR Florida’s image of a bike trail riding, coffee house going , member of the “Creative Class”.

Maybe im misreading Florida’s writings. But it seems like his vision of the city of the future is one where the city serves as an after -college dorm where hipsters live, drink coffee at coffee shops and bike on bike trails until they get married and have kids . And then they move out to suburbia and are replaced by other hipsters.

Some of what MR Florida writes is true. But true things he writes doesnt strike me as original. And he surrounds his good ideas with a lot of buzzwords.

My own personal opinion of what we need to do , is that we need to get down to the basics. We need to improve schools in our urban areas and we need to make crime decline even more than it has declined.And our cities have to attract jobs at ALL levels[ not just blue collar jobs but not just white collar jobs either]Then people wil want to live in our cities again

i dont pretend to know exactly how to do this. I do know that it will be hard work and wont happen overnight.

but i dont think that we can solve our urban problems by building bike trails [and for the record i like to ride bike trails] and using buzzwords and spending tax payer money on gimmicks [ my city spent almost $100,000 on a new slogan that i dont even remember].

Thats just my humble opinion.

But wasn’t the equally true of other places in the country? It wasn’t as if California was the sole beneficiary of this influx of federal dollars.