So the hottest, most dynamic economies are those that cater to urban sophisticates, right? Maybe not.
CNN and Money magazine just came out with a list of "best places to live." One measure was job growth. I am not at all familiar with most of the winners in that category, but I do know about a few of them: Ashburn, Sterling and Leesburg, Virginia. They rank 5, 6 and 7, respectively.
These are not urban hotspots. They are suburbs. And the kind of suburbs that make snooty people naseous. Located within a stones throw of Dulles International Airport, the highlights include: McMansions, TGI Fridays, and gridlocked roads.
Vienna, Virginia, similarly afflicted, made number 4 on the overall list.
People are not moving there for the sushi and then using their creative powers to open hip start-ups. They move for the jobs (very often at, gasp, enormous corporations like AOL) then try to build a community around them.
I do not prefer this kind of environment. That is one of the reasons I decided to leave my job in Northern Virginia. But any discussion of urban planning and economic development has to take into account that enormous numbers of people really like living this way. They just do. They like big houses in cul de sac neighborhoods. They like driving themselves to work in the biggest SUV they can afford. And they very often--almost always in fact--prefer the accessibility and consistency of Ruby Tuesdays to the precious "authenticity" of the hidden urban eatery. They might say they don't. But that's where they keep eating.
I don't think these people are bad or wrong. So many people do, however. In fact, they seem intent on insisting that this set of preferences does not--simply cannot--even exist.
So you REALLY want to attract people? If so, there is one sure answer, it seems. Jobs and sprawl. Sexy? Nope.
Reading your blog is putting me in a better, feist-ier mood. Thanks for the radical critiques . . . this last is especially eloquent.
Posted by: zp | July 11, 2005 at 09:25 AM