Columnist Neal Peirce addresses the issue of cities and population growth in a recent column. According to one report (‘The Changing Dynamics of Urban America’ by Robert Weissbourd and Christopher Berry, available for download here), a traditional measure of city success is no longer valid. Quoth the report:
For the first time in modern American history, population and growth no longer tend to go together.
Traditionally, the common measure of an urban area’s success has been its population growth: we think of a city as doing well if it is growing in numbers of people. This measure has worked well, including as a proxy for economic success, because growth in population historically has correlated closely with growth in income, wages, outputs and other more direct measures of economic performance. This is no longer true.
Instead, income growth in cities has become separated from raw population growth. While cities may grow dramatically in terms of numbers, the income and economic well-being of those cities is increasingly dependent on where higher wage-earners choose to live. Says Peirce:
The findings explode oft-heard claims that virtually all new big-box retailers, or assembly-line factories, or motel and other franchises, are good for an area. The game, instead, is to add wealth — and life choices — for existing residents.
In a particularly odd correlation from the report, the authors suggest that poor weather, rather than sunny climates, is a better draw for the knowledge workers:
While better weather attracts population overall, college graduates tend to go to places with worse weather. If there’s a silver bullet, it’s education. The more an area adds college graduates, the greater its prosperity. Cities do not need to grow big to grow wealthy, and growing big won’t necessarily lead to wealth.
It’s yet another angle on the ‘smart cities’ and ‘creative communities’ conversations that are blooming in city councils around the country (linked to their patron saint, Richard Florida, but also connecting beyond him).
Why does it matter to arts managers and arts organizations? Because if the new name of the city success game is attracting, retaining, and engaging educated and creative individuals, arts and cultural activity can be a major player. As I’ve said before, it’s not why we exist, but it’s a powerful byproduct of our work that tends to sway civic leaders.
I recently co-authored a monograph on the subject, with a group of people far smarter than me. The result extends this issue to the arts, and suggests ways for arts leaders to harness the trend in the advancement of their work.
