Economic Development and the Charlotte Experience: Why Image Doesn't Matter

Today's Post-Gazette offers the third in its series about Charlotte's banking boom. And in my mind it raises serious questions about Pittsburgh's main approach to urban redevelopment.

The article focuses on the fact that thousands of young, educated people from Western Pennsylvania have moved to Charlotte in recent years. Why? Because of more granite in the counter tops? More Tuscan tile in the hallways? Catchier slogans? No.

They moved there for jobs.

Almost all of the people in the article say that they prefer Pittsburgh. That Charlotte doesn't have enough cultural amenities. That they hate the go-go nature of the banking boom and the seemingly shallow culture it has spawned. Yet there they are. Here's a sample:

Take former Pittsburgher Linda Gregory, a Bank of America business analyst, for example. She moved to Charlotte in January 2005 because she came to the conclusion that there were "no jobs up there [in Pittsburgh]." While Ms. Gregory is still fond of Pittsburgh, she "would never consider moving north" again.

Or how about this, my favorite:

If there is a regret among Pittsburghers now stationed here, it is the soul and culture of the city they left behind.

The first time 30-year-old Jennifer Linsenmayer and her husband James, 35, moved to Charlotte, Mrs. Linsenmayer moved back after nine months. "I hated it," she said. "I hated the people, I hated where we were living. It seemed like this big party town."

But Mrs. Linsenmayer, originally from McCandless, could not find a job in Pittsburgh that paid enough. When she came back to Charlotte in 2001 for a job at Bank of America, her salary almost doubled to $45,000.

She could not find a job.

So would new condos in the Fifth-Forbes corridor have convinced her to stay? It's hard to see how. Because even if they were so heavily subsidized as to rent for $100 a month, it's tough to come up with $100 a month if you don't have a job.

I think the lesson here is critical: You can have all the cultural amenities you want. You can have fancy condos. You can have museums and symphonies and the rest. You can even have a cohort of loyal locals who are highly motivated to stay at almost any cost.

But if you don't have jobs they are going to leave. Even if they hate where they are going. Because they will move there and, eventually, build the cultural and social amenities they like.

Silicon Valley sucked. But people moved there. Charlotte, apparently, sucks for people born and raised in Pittsburgh. But they go. And I am sure Pittsburgh sucked in 1910. But people moved here. For work.

All these places had terrible, terrible IMAGES. People viewed them negatively as places. As homes. But the image didn't matter. Because these places had OPPORTUNITY.

So it seems to me that the lesson ought to be forget about image. Create opportunity. The rest will follow. Look at Charlotte. It has shed its textile and tobacco "image." By becoming something else. Not by talking about becoming something else. Or building condos. First, it attracted people to live in the condos. You know. Like a half million people in just a few years.

Look. I'm not kidding myself. I think that the powers that be, were they to focus on opportunity rather than image, would pursue it in a way that I might find objectionable. For instance, I object to spending public money on a skyscraper for PNC. But hey, that's how it goes. At least that appears to make some sort of sense.

The image stuff? Ask someone who moved to Charlotte.

Comments

[Jonathan Potts]

This is not the first article I've read that portrays Charlotte as a soul-less place where people are overly obsessed with success and status. It doesn't seem to matter, does it?

[Adam]

You are right of course: jobs will attract people better than nice condos.
But I take out my salt cellar when I read stories like this one: of course the nice ex-Pittsburghers are going to tell their old hometown paper that they much prefer Pittsburgh, that they only moved because of jobs, that they would move back in a heartbeat, etc. I don't mean that they aren't being sincere but people often tell an interviewer or survey-taker what they think will please the interviewer. And, all the more important to say something nice about Pittsburgh and how much you long for home if you know Aunt Mollie is going to read it.

[Jonathan Potts]

That is a valid point, but I've come across the same portrayal of Charlotte in non-Pittsburgh publications. The point is that I don't the town has a great image nationwide--beyond the growth of its economy.

[Amos the Poker Cat]

Except I have heard that same tired "soul-less place where people are overly obsessed with success and status" used describe all sorts of booming towns by other members of the PIT diaspora who did not find the success they were hoping for.

[Jonathan Potts]

Again, I've read this description of Charlotte in non-Pittsburgh publications. Esquire--or maybe it was GQ--profiled the city several years ago in light of several scandals there involving pro athletes.

The point is not to beat up on Charlotte, but to note that I agree with Sam's overall point, something I've said numerous times. Whatever Pittsburgh's problems are, none will be solved through better public relations.