The always-excellent Tom Frank skewers the "vibrancy" argument behond creative class theory for urban revitalization. 

 

Dead End on Shakin' Street

 

He starts by taking a look back at bland Kansas City (his hometown) and then brings us up-to-date....

 

The place fairly quivers with vitality now. It is swarming with artists; its traffic islands are bedecked with the colorful products of their studios. It boasts a spectacular new performing arts center designed by one of those spectacular new celebrity architects. It even has an indie-rock festival to call its own. And while much of the city’s flowering has been organic and spontaneous, other parts of its renaissance were engineered by the very class of civic leaders we used to deride for their impotence and cluelessness. At that Kansas City indie-rock festival, for example, the mayor himself made a presentation this year, as did numerous local professionals and business leaders.

 

Besides, as everyone knows, cupcakes are cool nowadays, like yoga or something—the consummate expression of the baker’s artisanal vibrancy.

 

Your hometown is probably vibrant, too. Every city is either vibrant these days or is working on a plan to attain vibrancy soon. The reason is simple: a city isn’t successful— isn’t even a city, really—unless it can lay claim to being “vibrant.”

 

...then on to the general points.  Pretty good stuff, and I was waiting for him to take this on since he has cast a jaundiced eye on a lot of this hip/cool stuff in the past (see "Consolidated Deviance" in a previous Baffler, and his book "The Conquest of Cool").

 

 

 

Here are my problems with this article:

 

The word "vibrant" has an understood meaning. It is not a meaningless buzzword. It denotes (or at least connotes) an active area in which there are things to do, and in which people (particularly younger people) can enjoy themselves and are welcome. The fact that people use a word frequently does not strip meaning from that word.

 

Frank caricatures this idea, creating an extreme (and incredibly foolish) straw man for himself to tear down. However friendly a city is to artists and "the creative class" (that term makes me gag), there are obviously broader economic factors in the city's economic and social success or failure. Regardless of how "cool" Silicon Valley is to hip people, if global demand for computers and software crashes, that community will suffer.

 

But--all else equal--it is better to have a reputation for being a fun and active city than a stodgy, boring place with absolutely nothing to do. "Vibrancy" is good. It's not the only good, but it is good. And at least part of the problem that cities like those he's mentioned has been is in getting smart people who grow up there to choose (if they have a choice) to stay there.

 

"Vibrancy"--like clean streets, or smog controls, or bike paths--is a word that refers to one (but not all) elements of a city's quality of life. Simply picking one quality of life issue, pretending as if urban planner-types see only that issue, and lampooning them for it, is silly. Saying "Oh, you think we should introduce a concerted effort to sweep streets regularly and pick up litter? HA! As if that by itself will turn your city's economy around!"is a bit silly, because no one thinks that clean streets will cure all ills. But at the same time, no one thinks that it's better to have dirty streets than it is to have clean ones.

 

There is no magic bullet to turning a city's economy around. But it is certainly better to be "vibrant" than to be the opposite, both for instrumental economic reasons (better quality of life attracts people and business to the area) and direct reasons (better quality of life is just nice in and of itself). Having things to do, an attitude that is friendly to the arts, and a decent nightlife won't cure every evil. But no one says they will, slogans aside.

I thought this was pretty good:

 

In today’s more vibrant version, though, the artist himself is the spectacle, the subject of the tour guide. His primary job is not really to produce art but to participate in a “scene”—in an act that is put on for well-heeled spectators. Indeed, this act is essential to the vibrant: in order to bring the economic effects that “the arts” are being counted upon to bring—attracting and retaining top talent for a city’s corporations, remember—the artist himself must be highly visible. He must run a gallery, patronize cool coffee shops and restaurants, or rehab rundown buildings. In short, where the WPA helped bankroll the work of William Gropper and Orson Welles, today’s vibrancy elite has let a thousand artisanal “third spaces” bloom.....

 

.... Vibrancy is a sort of performance that artists or musicians are expected to put on, either directly or indirectly, for the corporate class. These are the ones we aim to reassure of our city’s vibrancy, so that they never choose to move their millions (of dollars) to some more vibrant burg. An artist who keeps to herself, who works in her room all day, who wears unremarkable clothes and goes without tattoos— by definition she brings almost nothing to this project, adds little to the economic prospects of a given area. She inspires no one. She offers no lessons in creativity. She is not vibrant, not remunerative, not investment-grade.

 

...which we can cross-link to the hipster thread.

 

His comment on Potemkin Bohemias and "creative class" as bait reminds me of what goes on here in Dayton.  It's more transparent here for various reasons, perhaps because its such forced growth and so desperate., so "trying too hard to be cool"...so maybe Franks comments ring truer....

 

For me vibrant would be if the local neighborhoods were prosperous enough to support all the vacant neighborhood retail spaces and corner stores around here, or there was enough of a market or demand for urban housing so that the city wouldn't be on its way to abandonmnet.  It wouldn't be particularly cool....in fact when these places were occupied this was a 'square' blue collar factory city....

 

...... but it would be closer to what I would consider a living city, vs a shell with this wannabe hipster bohemia grafted on.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hmmm, after re-reading I see Ohio cities get mentioned a bit.....

I agree his basic argument invokes a straw man. He over simplifies a lot of issues, so there is a lot to unpack, which I don't have time to do now. I think there is an underlying critique of the modern left being beholden to monied interests which deserves introspection, and that to me is the most valuable take-away from the article.

 

I don't think the establishment embracing what started as Bohemian is necessarily a bad thing, which is something he seems to criticize.

I think there is an underlying critique of the modern left being beholden to monied interests which deserves introspection, and that to me is the most valuable take-away from the article.

 

I had a marxist professor once who used to bemoan the "commodification of revolt" that occured after the 60's counter-culture movement waned. The article thoughtfully brings up the concept of corporate-sponsored, former pillars of the anti-establishment such as art and "indie-rock festivals."

 

On the other hand, art and music have almost always been patronized by the elite. Opera houses, concert halls and museums probably weren't built over the centuries to promote "vibrancy" but it would be an interesting comparison.

I think there is a nuanced discussion to be had about the appropriation and distortion of once-countercultural ideals by the mainstream, but the people bringing it up never seem to want to engage in nuance.The discussion in the hipster thread is a good example.

 

I see it as something to monitor and keep in check, but not something to decry. I'm glad West Chester has a farmers market, for example.

The "vibrancy" concept has always bothered me, as it really has no meaning.  Vibration has zero to do with urban development, and equating successful urbanity to an unrelated concept makes it harder to figure out what specific decisions might or might not lead to the sought-after result. 

 

It also glosses over big-picture relationships in favor of a myopic and balkanized approach, suggesting that developments have an actual physical radius through which "vibrations" transmit and gradually fade, like ripples in a pond.  It also suggests that putting people in an area, for whatever purpose, will ultimately lead to successful urbanity because the essence of "vibrancy" is people milling about-- regardless of context, regardless of why they're there or what they're likely to do, regardless of what costs may have been incurred by putting them there.

 

For example, under the vibrancy theory, placing a large workplace in a neighborhood will necessarily improve its fortunes, because it causes more people to spend time in that area.  All these people vibrate like little atoms, leading to Step 3: Profit.  The problem with this approach is that the connection between placing workers there and "Step 3: Profit" has not been established... it's simply assumed because that's how vibrancy works.  It's a gross oversimplification that precludes further analysis or understanding. 

yeah, this is a great read - love the Baffler, Tom Frank and especially "the conquest of cool"

 

 

Twelve years later, this explains why the election went the way it did 100%

 

Link to referenced article

Edited November 21, 2024Nov 21 by SuperbowlSteve

On 11/21/2024 at 1:12 PM, SuperbowlSteve said:

Twelve years later, this explains why the election went the way it did 100%

 

Link to referenced article

Yup:

It is time to acknowledge the truth: that our leaders have nothing to say, really, about any of this. They have nothing to suggest, really, to Cairo, Illinois, or St. Joseph, Missouri. They have no comment to make, really, about the depopulation of the countryside or the deindustrialization of the Midwest. They have nothing to offer, really, but the same suggestions as before, gussied up with a new set of clichés. They have no idea what to do for places or people that aren’t already successful or that have no prospects of ever becoming cool.

On 11/21/2024 at 1:12 PM, SuperbowlSteve said:

Link to referenced article

14 hours ago, Rustbelter said:

Yup:

It is time to acknowledge the truth: that our leaders have nothing to say, really, about any of this. They have nothing to suggest, really, to Cairo, Illinois, or St. Joseph, Missouri. They have no comment to make, really, about the depopulation of the countryside or the deindustrialization of the Midwest. They have nothing to offer, really, but the same suggestions as before, gussied up with a new set of clichés. They have no idea what to do for places or people that aren’t already successful or that have no prospects of ever becoming cool.

Except, the article does provide some solutions -- and the Democrats actually have pushed for many of these ideas (particularly the often-derided Progressives, in contrast to the neoliberals like Bill Clinton).  So it's not that none of our leaders have anything meaningful to say to Midwesterners.

Quote

A while ago I was talking about rural depopulation with an officer of a Kansas farmers’ organization; as it happened, he had thought about the problem a great deal. Using arts festivals to make small towns appear “vibrant” was not one of his suggestions, however. Instead, he proposed universal health coverage, since independent farmers find it difficult to get insurance nowadays and are often driven to seek corporate employment by this brute fact of rural life.

 

Other solutions to the problem of rural depopulation are just as easy to come up with. Outlaw corporate agriculture, which would encourage not only small farms but food diversity as well. Use zoning rules to restrict big-box stores, thereby saving small town merchants. Make college excellent and affordable, so that graduates aren’t forced by the weight of student debt to seek corporate employment. Rewrite NAFTA and take other steps to stop the decline of manufacturing.

But yeah, the Republican Party opposes pretty much every one of these ideas, so we can expect none will advance under the new administration and in fact they plan to reverse all of Biden's policies that moved in those directions.

^

 

The context of the article was basically "creative class" messaging of the 2010's being applied to places where that doesn't really work (or now in hindsight hasn't). I didn't comment on political parties or their policies, but I'll say that natininja's 12 year old comment above about the modern left being beholden to monied interests is indeed still deserving of some introspection based on the current political climate. I'm not here to debate politics though, but you're free to grid your ax in the echo chamber Current Events forum.

A lot of the smaller towns have developed some "vibrancy" in their main part of their cores as compared to 2012. It's not the Short North or anything but at least they don't have only a funeral home, flower shop and antiques store in them like they used to. Not much employment-wise has changed in them as the public sector usually remains a very outsize portion of the economy in them. The white-collar portion of the public sector has enlarged somewhat in these areas as money for things like mental health counselors and school administrators/support has become more available. And WFH (not just post-COVID outbreak) enables others to live in them.

4 hours ago, GCrites said:

A lot of the smaller towns have developed some "vibrancy" in their main part of their cores as compared to 2012. It's not the Short North or anything but at least they don't have only a funeral home, flower shop and antiques store in them like they used to. Not much employment-wise has changed in them as the public sector usually remains a very outsize portion of the economy in them. The white-collar portion of the public sector has enlarged somewhat in these areas as money for things like mental health counselors and school administrators/support has become more available. And WFH (not just post-COVID outbreak) enables others to live in them.

I think Delaware is a good example of this. Even though it’s technically not super rural or small anymore. They have done a great job of making a vibrant downtown area that people want to go to. 
 

An actual small town that I always thought did a decent job of this was Bryan Ohio. I haven’t been back in years, but I remember 10+ years ago they had a focus on growing their downtown and actually having businesses there. 

Northwest Ohio, in general, probably has the healthiest small towns (not talking suburban county seats) in the state. Wauseon would be the exception...it needs work.

6 hours ago, GCrites said:

A lot of the smaller towns have developed some "vibrancy" in their main part of their cores as compared to 2012. 

This is true for sure, but is often limited or capped by economic realities. In my hometown of Ashtabula the harbor district has become a nice place to hang out in a unique setting. I believe in this case it has been driven by local organic growth once people became interested in taking advantage of the town's unique assets (in this instance a mostly intact Victorian era port district) and opened up some nice businesses there. However, the rest of the town remains in rough condition and is a shell of its former self.

 

2 hours ago, ColDayMan said:

Northwest Ohio, in general, probably has the healthiest small towns (not talking suburban county seats) in the state. 

I have noticed this too, at least on average for the rural towns which are outside of the larger metro areas. My speculation is these towns have not been subject to the economic booms & busts that happen elsewhere in the state. That and the heavy German-American sensibilities of the region. Unfortunately they're also often surrounded by some of the State's most boring landscapes.

5 hours ago, ColDayMan said:

Northwest Ohio, in general, probably has the healthiest small towns (not talking suburban county seats) in the state. Wauseon would be the exception...it needs work.

I was just about to say, except for wauseon. I grew up there and it still blows my mind how nothing has been done to the downtown area. Losing two good size buildings to fire didn’t help but they could have been replaced with something close. Instead the one is a parking lot and the other is a one story corner restaurant with a grass area. 
 

The town just enjoys driving to fast food and being lazy unhealthy backwoods people. The downtown is a great stretch and there could be so much done down there. I’m glad I got the hell out. 

3 hours ago, Rustbelter said:

I have noticed this too, at least on average for the rural towns which are outside of the larger metro areas. My speculation is these towns have not been subject to the economic booms & busts that happen elsewhere in the state. That and the heavy German-American sensibilities of the region. Unfortunately they're also often surrounded by some of the State's most boring landscapes.

 

I actually think it's simpler than that.  Those boring landscapes are the reason why it's prosperous: Agriculture.  Southeast Ohio is coal country and is dying; the other 3 regions are suburban and exurban communities outside of the state's largest metros (sans Toledo). Thus, Northwest Ohio's farmbelt keeps it healthy. 

 

Except Wauseon. 

15 minutes ago, ColDayMan said:

Except Wauseon. 

It’s weird because wauseon hasn’t really ever lost population either, until the 2021 census. I don’t know what draws people there, or if everyone that stayed just decides to have 3-4 kids