The Playground City

[Encolpius]

Piece by Ed Glaeser and someone else in the NYT today.

26 Empire State Buildings Could Fit Into New York’s Empty Office Space. That’s a Sign.

Read more: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...ound-city.html

New York is undergoing a metamorphosis from a city dedicated to productivity to one built around pleasure. The economic future of the city depends on embracing this shift from vocation to recreation and ensuring that New Yorkers with a wide range of talents want to spend their nights downtown, even if they are spending their days on Zoom. We are witnessing the dawn of a new kind of urban area: the Playground City.

In 1980 the futurist Alvin Toffler argued that information technology would make urban offices largely obsolete, with workers using residential “electronic cottages” instead. For 40 years, he was wrong. Then, in an instant, it seemed that he was right. The office tower, like the port and the train station before it, had its relevance challenged by a competing technology: Zoom.

If the office is not returning to its central position in our lives, then humanity, as a social species, must find new opportunities for mixing in physical space. If people do not need to go downtown for wages, they must instead desire to go there. A place to live and play rather than work: This is the dream of the Playground City.

New York needs to attract the rich and talented, but the poem beneath the Statue of Liberty reminds us that the city’s greatness comes just as much from being the landing site for “your tired, your poor, your huddled masses” that it is now pricing out. One way to balance these two governmental imperatives — to help the poor and generate tax revenue from the affluent — is to view the city as a for-profit real estate development company wholly owned by a nonprofit poverty-alleviation entity. The for-profit company focuses on keeping the city attractive to the rich, and the revenue it generates gets plowed into schools and support for the poor.

I'm not really shocked to read this kind of proposal. The 'creative class' ideology that Glaeser's become famous promoting is basically the economic argument of New Labour (let the rich get filthy rich so they can fund a decent welfare state) packaged in the Situationist vibe of the 1960s. I find it distasteful, but I dig the Situationists and also think the economic argument is not to be easily dismissed. I certainly like many of their proposals, like 'investing in culture, reducing the regulation of recreation, spurring residential development, improving public transit.' On the other hand, an obvious objection to the Playground City is that 'playgrounds for the rich' (that is, places dedicated to yuppies or tourism) never turn out to be any fun, actually. The more that leisure becomes an economic transaction, the more mediated, less edgy and spontaneous it becomes, &c. There are probably other reasons for this as well.

Anyway, curious to hear other people's thoughts.

[DCReid]

Originally Posted by Encolpius

Piece by Ed Glaeser and someone else in the NYT today.

26 Empire State Buildings Could Fit Into New York’s Empty Office Space. That’s a Sign.

Read more: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...ound-city.html




I'm not really shocked to read this kind of proposal. The 'creative class' ideology that Glaeser's become famous promoting is basically the economic argument of New Labour (let the rich get filthy rich so they can fund a decent welfare state) packaged in the Situationist vibe of the 1960s. I find it distasteful, but I dig the Situationists and also think the economic argument is not to be easily dismissed. I certainly like many of their proposals, like 'investing in culture, reducing the regulation of recreation, spurring residential development, improving public transit.' On the other hand, an obvious objection to the Playground City is that 'playgrounds for the rich' (that is, places dedicated to yuppies or tourism) never turn out to be any fun, actually. The more that leisure becomes an economic transaction, the more mediated, less edgy and spontaneous it becomes, &c. There are probably other reasons for this as well.

Anyway, curious to hear other people's thoughts.

I think this is nothing new. NYC and Manhattan has always been a playground city - if it wasn't, places like Times Square, Greenwich Village, the Fashion District, Harlem, etc. would not be famous, just as famous as the Empire State Building, Wall Street, and big business.

[Crawford]

There was a much higher vacancy rate during the last recession, both in NYC and nationwide. Glaeser knows this.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by DCReid

I think this is nothing new. NYC and Manhattan has always been a playground city - if it wasn't, places like Times Square, Greenwich Village, the Fashion District, Harlem, etc. would not be famous, just as famous as the Empire State Building, Wall Street, and big business.

Couldn't you say that about any city?

[iheartthed]

This op-ed is pretty dumb. I doubt that you can anchor high earning people to NYC without anchoring high income jobs to the city.

[DCReid]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Couldn't you say that about any city?

I can't see the whole article to read it but I am guessing that many of the 'traditional' creative cities have gotten so expensive that they are no longer as much a draw for the creative class/playground class. So I guess the author wants to convert much of the office space to subsidized or lower rent housing. I'm sure an aspiring creative person who wants to live in a place like NYC, SF, and LA can and will find a way, but it seems like it is now so prohibitively expensive in those cities. While places like the Texas cities certainly have the opportunities and are cheap, many of the southern metros are very suburban sprawl with fairly weak urban cores. Chicago remains a great bargain for creative classes. DC, while expensive, is also a good choice, especially if someone is willing to consider Baltimore.

[Encolpius]

Originally Posted by Crawford

There was a much higher vacancy rate during the last recession, both in NYC and nationwide. Glaeser knows this.

He cites data in the article disputing this:

Originally Posted by iheartthed

This op-ed is pretty dumb. I doubt that you can anchor high earning people to NYC without anchoring high income jobs to the city.

I think Glaeser is suggesting that industries in which the work is susceptible to work-from-home can be anchored to cities by anchoring the workers themselves. He implies that finance favors cities like New York and London because employees like the cultural opportunities and quality of life in those cities; presumably that's now London's main advantage over Frankfurt, for example. I could start a tech company anywhere, but I'd find the best talent if I located in Silicon Valley. But the best talent's in Silicon Valley partly because that's where tech companies are founded. So it's a bit self-reinforcing, perhaps, but the cycle can be broken if the employees no longer like living in London or Palo Alto or wherever.

But also: where would they go? The suburbs? Second-tier cities in flyover country? If purely for cultural reasons, it's hard to imagine the professional-managerial class abandoning coastal metropoles completely. They want their children to go to school with the children of other high status, well-educated people. They want the opera and the museums and good restaurants.

What anchored people to cities was once (originally, perhaps) religion; as politics gradually separated itself from religion, it then became the state and political institutions. As trade developed (initially in the service of the palace, court and army), economics gradually became the most important tether, and particularly so since the industrial revolution. But why can't the anchor be something else in the future? Social networking? Cultural status?

[mhays]

"Vacancy rates" aren't the whole story. That's not counting leased space that's unoccupied. The idea of impending massive vacancies assumes that a lof of leases won't renew at their sunset dates, or will renew with far less space. We need a few more years for that to sort out.

[Velvet_Highground]

I believe there’s a misconception about what’s driving the forces that are distorting real estate prices in America’s primer cities it’s a merry go round effect that is the result of the way we have been doing business since the 80’s. The dismantling of the post Wall Street crash economic consensus that corporations run by boards of expert technocrats bounded by financial regulations from the Federal Reserve would keep another depression from happening by preventing reckless risk taking.

The model of using high-interest loans or junk bonds to finance hostile takeovers of US industries fundamentally changed the socioeconomic model of the country. A company would be asset stripped or downsized and the profits would go to paying back the loan and leveraging more capital to make bigger acquisitions. Companies either got with the program or were swept up by the market corporate goals moved away from making money by creating tangible products and services with stock value reflecting the health of the business. The switch to creating a business model that would satisfy investors and shareholders accelerated offshoring & deindustrialization at home. Moving manufacturing to the cheapest possible location with the lowest overheads lead to doing massive amounts of business in countries that are fundamentally run on corruption. Tax havens can hide the source money that comes from questionable business practices so it can be put into the western financial system and these corrupt companies can use the assets to build legitimate public faces that can hide more dirty dealings. NY is the heat of the world financial industry for a Russian oligarch or a Chinese Communist Party member who has a stake in making knock off iPhones getting cash flow back from western financial institutions can be about more than just making a buck. Having cash flow to reward loyal underlings pay bribes and control life chances of the population loyal or otherwise is essential to staying in power. This trickle back dark economics is further distorting prices up an already unbalanced & distorted economic system. I don’t buy for a minute that America can’t have a healthy high tech manufacturing industry along with a strong financial sector as well as being at the cutting edge of R&D & implementation of new technology.

The incentives have been going against type of expensive long term investment in education, science, technology, infrastructure & R&D that take a generation or more to bare fruit when you can reap instant huge returns by being an insider in the financial services sector. The effects fact that geopolitical shocks and the fact that we dont control our supply chains or they have single source bottlenecks in adversarial competitors have only begun to cause (financial) problems lately while the national security implications have been highlighted in the forefront of the public spotlight.

*post script* I had some more detailed thoughts that meandered way off topic so I rewrote and condensed this bit of musing. I’m not here to blame foreigners for American’s problems, in some cases savvy overseas business people will move their assets and invest the US because its assets are among the safest bets in the world. Furthermore there are individuals who are afraid of their own governments because of various reasons after becoming successful and economically powerful that they wish to have their assets safe in a country where the rule of law is much stronger. My main concern is the opaque nature with which the financial industry operates we have our own revolving door issues of corruption with lobbyists & federal & state governments. The leaders of industry that were ousted by the corporate raiders were American Patricians the system wasn’t some golden days of yore. But the ripping up of the post war social contract didn’t lead to anything better it greatly exacerbated underlying equalities, there’s a whole other series of points and debates dealing with government, political & policy that need to be devolved into to scratch the surface as context to get a closer to full and fair picture. I singled out Chinese companies with ties to the government and post soviet oligarchs as offenders distorting the price of real estate in NY and other major NA & EU cities because their east. Our struggles to have a more equatable system being stymied by our open financial access to cash flow from corrupt governments is a result of our own making and is a symptom of the problem though becoming a more complicated one as geopolitical competition heats up.

NY is the center of the world at least in the sense that it’s the center of the US-western sphere of influence and as a the greatest city in the world issues that effect the country & world are over represented or played out on a different scale. I sort of just took an opportunity to not promote isolationism or push a political narrative but work out for myself certain opinions and ideas I believe are important. If a green high tech industrial revolution opens up America to creating a more solid base to the economy and much of that technology has been driven by venture capitalists who have are an outgrowth of our unchained financial system that will be a happy ending. As humans doomed to die we are imperfect and self interested and that reflects in our society I’m not day dreaming that we can build a shining city on a hill or heaven on earth. I am pointing out that with the erosion of the middle class and the rise of the “service class” (the classical working class has been decimated worse than the middle) isn’t sustainable and is vaguely similar to the social class system at the turn of the 20th century. I don’t have any answers but am trying to ask the right questions we are more interconnected & yet more isolated than ever this social aspect of individualistic retreat from the social movements of the 60s along with stress Cold War conflicts, possible Nuclear Armageddon at an inflection point historically with the birth of modern technology as a whole other rabbit hole that can be seen as at least an interesting side note if not more connected in a way.

We need to come up with practical solutions that most people can agree on (they’re out there for many issues) I hope some kind of shock to the system can end these ideological culture wars we’re fighting. People have a right to be who they are and that shouldn’t be an issue as long as we all aren’t trying to force our views on others but the pseudo connectivity brought about by social media (which has its benefits) isn’t a good replacement for the community we live in local, national and beyond if your an internationalist like myself.

I dug up a couple of Adam Curtis documentaries I watched years ago to double check my thoughts while I chewed on the issues of our day. The Mayfair Set (#2 & #3) especially are interesting and would recommend em.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=zpeoRKi8exk

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=CD4tuHs86KA

[hipster duck]

Originally Posted by Encolpius

What anchored people to cities was once (originally, perhaps) religion; as politics gradually separated itself from religion, it then became the state and political institutions. As trade developed (initially in the service of the palace, court and army), economics gradually became the most important tether, and particularly so since the industrial revolution. But why can't the anchor be something else in the future? Social networking? Cultural status?

For a lot of professionals in their twenties what anchors them to big, expensive cities is the dating pool.

The coastal cities are kind of a trap. You're lured to them, fresh out of school, by the jobs, higher pay and dating opportunities and that's fine during that period of time when you don't mind roommates. Then you find someone, settle down, but by then you've made all your social connections and networks in the city and you can't leave.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Encolpius

I think Glaeser is suggesting that industries in which the work is susceptible to work-from-home can be anchored to cities by anchoring the workers themselves. He implies that finance favors cities like New York and London because employees like the cultural opportunities and quality of life in those cities; presumably that's now London's main advantage over Frankfurt, for example. I could start a tech company anywhere, but I'd find the best talent if I located in Silicon Valley. But the best talent's in Silicon Valley partly because that's where tech companies are founded. So it's a bit self-reinforcing, perhaps, but the cycle can be broken if the employees no longer like living in London or Palo Alto or wherever.

But also: where would they go? The suburbs? Second-tier cities in flyover country? If purely for cultural reasons, it's hard to imagine the professional-managerial class abandoning coastal metropoles completely. They want their children to go to school with the children of other high status, well-educated people. They want the opera and the museums and good restaurants.

What anchored people to cities was once (originally, perhaps) religion; as politics gradually separated itself from religion, it then became the state and political institutions. As trade developed (initially in the service of the palace, court and army), economics gradually became the most important tether, and particularly so since the industrial revolution. But why can't the anchor be something else in the future? Social networking? Cultural status?

Yeah, this kind of sounds like the tail wagging the dog. The amenities are a function of the success of the city, not the key to it. Access to opportunity and convenience is what successful urban centers thrive on. Without that a city will inevitably fail.