Does the infinite supply of "best city" rankings make or break a city?
In the February issue of Governing, Zach Patton examines the benefits and the drawbacks of these rankings.
As an example, Charlottesville, Virginia says that a #1 ranking in Sperling's 2004 "Cities Ranked and Rated" led directly to growth in the population and a boost in thecity's creative class. (There is also a large state university there.)
But what those working in economic development see as a boon, others will see as a loss. A flood of new, incoming residents, sprawling growth and rising housing costs can destroy everything that made the city so great in the first place.
In the latest edition of Sperling's book, Charlottesville had fallen to #17 due to "escalating housing prices".
Friday, February 29, 2008
Governing: Do you really want to be the best?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments
(Atom)
Recent Comments
1 comments:
interesting, i agree that aiming to be best is trouble. in "the city as a growth machine" molotch (1976) wrote about the reasons growth is seen as so essential and yet doesn't indicate any real urban health. i still grappling with the whole thing for cincinnati, 'cause i don't think his idea of civic boosters works quite as he wants it to. someday i'll send you a version of the paper i'm working on if you interested. big fan of b-c!
Post a Comment