http://mffitzgerald.com/wordpress/?p=268 An occasional journal of ideas and work by Michael Fitzgerald Sat, 11 Apr 2026 20:46:35 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.5 http://mffitzgerald.com/wordpress/?p=268#comment-281939 Fri, 06 Mar 2009 15:55:25 +0000 http://mffitzgerald.com/wordpress/?p=268#comment-281939 [...] Abandon areas fated for decline to their fate. Not just Detroit, Cleveland and Buffalo, but also Phoenix. Florida says the new America will look like this: It will likely be sparser in the Midwest and also, ultimately, in those parts of the Southeast that are dependent on manufacturing. Its suburbs will be thinner and its houses, perhaps, smaller. Some of its southwestern cities will grow less quickly. Its great mega-regions will rise farther upward and extend farther outward. It will feature a lower rate of homeownership, and a more mobile population of renters. In short, it will be a more concentrated geography, one that allows more people to mix more freely and interact more efficiently in a discrete number of dense, innovative mega-regions and creative cities. Serendipitously, it will be a landscape suited to a world in which petroleum is no longer cheap by any measure. But most of all, it will be a landscape that can accommodate and accelerate invention, innovation, and creation—the activities in which the U.S. still holds a big competitive advantage. Florida makes a radical argument. Coincidentally, he also fills in some of the gaps in Emma Rothschild’s argument against continuing the auto-industrial state. It shows a model for adding both public transit infrastructure without eliminating cars. But it seems like some economic thinkers are coalescing around a much different direction for government stimulus. The markets don’t like what Obama's doing now. Perhaps this plan to grow by shrinking makes sense. posted by Michael Fitzgerald March 6, 2009 @ 7:55 am [...] […] Abandon areas fated for decline to their fate. Not just Detroit, Cleveland and Buffalo, but also Phoenix. Florida says the new America will look like this: It will likely be sparser in the Midwest and also, ultimately, in those parts of the Southeast that are dependent on manufacturing. Its suburbs will be thinner and its houses, perhaps, smaller. Some of its southwestern cities will grow less quickly. Its great mega-regions will rise farther upward and extend farther outward. It will feature a lower rate of homeownership, and a more mobile population of renters. In short, it will be a more concentrated geography, one that allows more people to mix more freely and interact more efficiently in a discrete number of dense, innovative mega-regions and creative cities. Serendipitously, it will be a landscape suited to a world in which petroleum is no longer cheap by any measure. But most of all, it will be a landscape that can accommodate and accelerate invention, innovation, and creation—the activities in which the U.S. still holds a big competitive advantage. Florida makes a radical argument. Coincidentally, he also fills in some of the gaps in Emma Rothschild’s argument against continuing the auto-industrial state. It shows a model for adding both public transit infrastructure without eliminating cars. But it seems like some economic thinkers are coalescing around a much different direction for government stimulus. The markets don’t like what Obama’s doing now. Perhaps this plan to grow by shrinking makes sense. posted by Michael Fitzgerald March 6, 2009 @ 7:55 am […]

]]> http://mffitzgerald.com/wordpress/?p=268#comment-281938 Fri, 06 Mar 2009 15:51:17 +0000 http://mffitzgerald.com/wordpress/?p=268#comment-281938 [...] Florida makes a radical argument. Coincidentally, he also fills in some of the gaps in Emma Rothschild’s argument against continuing the auto-industrial state. It shows a model for adding both public transit infrastructure without eliminating cars. It will not be easy to achieve. A lot of people may not like living in apartments and sharing washing machines with their neighbors, the way they do in Hammarby Sjostad in Sweden (see halfway down this Bill McKibben piece).  But it seems like intellectuals may be coalescing around a much different direction for government stimulus. The markets don’t like watching Obama try to gather up everything and lift it. [...] […] Florida makes a radical argument. Coincidentally, he also fills in some of the gaps in Emma Rothschild’s argument against continuing the auto-industrial state. It shows a model for adding both public transit infrastructure without eliminating cars. It will not be easy to achieve. A lot of people may not like living in apartments and sharing washing machines with their neighbors, the way they do in Hammarby Sjostad in Sweden (see halfway down this Bill McKibben piece).  But it seems like intellectuals may be coalescing around a much different direction for government stimulus. The markets don’t like watching Obama try to gather up everything and lift it. […]

]]>