Joel Kotkin has some intruguing thoughts on rebuilding New Orleans in today's Tribune-Review.
But what kind of city will the builders create on the sodden ruins?
The wrong approach would be to preserve a chimera of the past, producing a touristic faux New Orleans, a Cajun Disneyland.
Sadly, even before Hurricane Katrina's devastation, local leaders seemed convinced that being a "port of cool" should be the city's policy. Adopting a page from Richard Florida's "creative class" theory, city leaders held a conference just a month before the disaster promoting a cultural strategy as the primary way to bring in high-end industry.
This would be the easy, bankable way to go now. But it would squander a greater opportunity. A tourism-based economy is no way to generate a broadly successful economy.
Once everyone begins coming to terms with the initial devastation, New Orleans will offer an intriguing take on the age-old debate about urban development. For the first time in a long time, a US city will be starting with a blank slate. What mix of political/economic/cultural/political interests will guide its rebirth? What should? Why?
The Richard Florida model might appeal to local leaders for a lot of reasons. It seems easy. And it placates the preservation crowd. But sadly, there seems little left to preserve in NOLA. Does a "recreated" Burboun Street have any value? Is the ANY room for traditional industry in or near modern cities? Who should decide such things? Should it matter that a city so blessed with such strong tourist amenities was so desperately poor?
We're about to find out.
Comments