A recollection of the time I saw how urbanists from other cities view cities in the nation's midsection -- with pity. Too bad, because there's much to be learned here.
I'm glad you posted this as it aligns with some themes I intend to discuss as part of upcoming guest correspondent posts. If there are urban solutions that are to gain widespread national support over the next four years - they seem unlikely to come from the coastal cities that are favored by urbanists - as these cities (in particular, Seattle, Portland, San Fracisco, and Los Angeles) - have, rightly or wrongly, been discredited in the current national discourse due to their seeming inability to cope with lawlessness, homelessness, housing costs, and now natural disasters. The policies and financial "innovations" originating from NYC and Washington DC (what I view as US centers of greed or "toxic ambition") seem unlikely to be the source for solutions to the problems facing urban areas, and if anything will exacerbate the problems of many urban areas. And much of the sunbelt cities success seems to have been based on "race to the bottom" economic and environmental strategies (e.g., move your union plant in Ohio paying family supporting wages to Texas, where we'll use our oil income to incentivize your move, our right to work laws to help keep your worker's wages low, and our lax environmental rules to further benefit your bottom line).
Your experience may be related to the fact that urban reform institute isn't interested in cities. They're a well funded Republican think tank to promote the idea of sprawling suburbs with tons of freeways because that business model works for the companies that fund them. That and to denigrate democrats who generally run those cities. The reason they aren't interested in segregation etc. Is because they're Republicans, they think it's a good thing and that's all in the core city anyway, just defund it and built more freeways and suburbs and channel all the money there. Gattis is there to provide a thin pretext for how freeways are more efficient than transit, Blain is there to provide a thin pretext the group cares what happens to urban residents while yet another freeway is dug through their neighborhood. They're not interested in cities, they're interested in criticizing them and providing an intellectual basis for the Republican approach to cities, pave them over and defund the parts with diverse populations.
I'm glad you posted this as it aligns with some themes I intend to discuss as part of upcoming guest correspondent posts. If there are urban solutions that are to gain widespread national support over the next four years - they seem unlikely to come from the coastal cities that are favored by urbanists - as these cities (in particular, Seattle, Portland, San Fracisco, and Los Angeles) - have, rightly or wrongly, been discredited in the current national discourse due to their seeming inability to cope with lawlessness, homelessness, housing costs, and now natural disasters. The policies and financial "innovations" originating from NYC and Washington DC (what I view as US centers of greed or "toxic ambition") seem unlikely to be the source for solutions to the problems facing urban areas, and if anything will exacerbate the problems of many urban areas. And much of the sunbelt cities success seems to have been based on "race to the bottom" economic and environmental strategies (e.g., move your union plant in Ohio paying family supporting wages to Texas, where we'll use our oil income to incentivize your move, our right to work laws to help keep your worker's wages low, and our lax environmental rules to further benefit your bottom line).
Your experience may be related to the fact that urban reform institute isn't interested in cities. They're a well funded Republican think tank to promote the idea of sprawling suburbs with tons of freeways because that business model works for the companies that fund them. That and to denigrate democrats who generally run those cities. The reason they aren't interested in segregation etc. Is because they're Republicans, they think it's a good thing and that's all in the core city anyway, just defund it and built more freeways and suburbs and channel all the money there. Gattis is there to provide a thin pretext for how freeways are more efficient than transit, Blain is there to provide a thin pretext the group cares what happens to urban residents while yet another freeway is dug through their neighborhood. They're not interested in cities, they're interested in criticizing them and providing an intellectual basis for the Republican approach to cities, pave them over and defund the parts with diverse populations.