Does Culture Explain Urban Development?

This theory of urban development which puts a vague notion of culture at the center of the analysis is from The Manhattan Institute, a right-wing think tank that has William Kristol and Peggy Noonan, among others, on its Board of Trustees:

A Tale of Several Cities, by Julia Vitullo-Martin, Commentary, WSJ: ...Why does Boston prosper ... while Philadelphia languishes...? Why does much of Boston look like Hollywood's idea of a hip, fabulous place to live, while downtown Philadelphia seems to be a bleak postindustrial landscape...?

The answers are not to be found in conventional 20th-century analysis, which emphasized the ... decline of industrial jobs, the burdens of excessive taxation, the inevitability of racial tensions and the dominance of geography. After all, in traditional urban terms, Philadelphia and Boston are nearly twins, both founded by Protestant-Anglo stock in the 17th century, both blessed with prime locations, beautiful waterfronts, good vernacular housing, historic buildings, Olmsted parks, renowned museums and fine universities. And both are high-tax cities that have lost their industrial base. Yet one now thrives while the other declines.

At least part of the answer stems from their underlying cultures. In his "Puritan Boston and Quaker Philadelphia" (1979), E. Digby Baltzell argued that Boston Brahmins, with their belief in authority and leadership, embraced a sense of responsibility for civic life, while Philadelphia Gentlemen, with their inward but judgmental Quaker ways were deeply unconcerned about their city's welfare. Over the course of the 19th century and well into the 20th, they abdicated their role in government and watched indifferently as Philadelphia became, by the 1960s, the worst run city in the nation. The Brahmins ... cared about their city -- and so, subsequently, did the Irish politicians with whom they warred and the Italians who replaced the Irish.

Such cultural analysis -- long out of fashion as too soft (as as opposed to econometrics) or too racist (who is to say that one culture is better than another?) -- is due for a comeback. It starts to explain, in a way that mere fiscal analysis does not, why Miami has become the gateway to Latin America, why Los Angeles rules the Pacific Rim and why Chicago controls the Midwest. And it helps us to understand how New York City moved in 30 years from the humiliation of near bankruptcy to being the dominant city on earth.

The old answer of urban success was deterministic: taxes and geography. Cities with superb natural harbors, for example, become the natural capitals of trade... Yet as the historian Richard Wade has noted for years, against the tide of his field, this theory has its flaws: If the sheer excellence of a harbor truly determined a city's fate, then the greatest city in America would be Upper Sandusky, Ohio.

What flourishing cities often have in common, instead, are two crucial cultural characteristics: combativeness and cunning. New Yorkers, for example, fought back from their 1975 bankruptcy with every tool at their disposal, fair and unfair. ... New York armed itself with brilliant leadership, cut its bloated operating and capital budgets, cajoled ... federal loan guarantees from Congress, poured money into fixing up thousands of units of abandoned housing, fought crime and graffiti -- and emerged triumphant. ...

That same energy contributes to New York's cyclical boom-and-bust nature, regularly pushing speculation beyond the limits of an exuberant boom, thereby encouraging a bust. New Yorkers have done this for centuries while, for example, more temperate Chicagoans have not. Seemingly more stolid than New Yorkers, Chicagoans have transformed Carl Sandburg's brawling city of big shoulders into what is probably the most beautiful of postindustrial cities.

Chicagoans actually think about beauty in a way that New Yorkers do not, caring for their public gardens -- which go unvandalized though they are also unpoliced -- and embracing Mayor Daley's seemingly quixotic decision, 20 years ago, to put flowers wherever he could fit them, starting with highway barriers. (At the time, New York's parks commissioner, Gordon Davis, complained that he couldn't even get his own staff to plant flowers in front of his headquarters.) Cherishing their unparalleled lakefront -- originally a gift of businessman Montgomery Ward -- Chicagoans keep it free of invasive development...

Cunning and combativeness, however, often restore cities financially without making them many new friends ... But what makes cities successful -- or even just lovable -- can seldom be quantified. Even Baltzell, who admired the mind and achievements of Puritan Boston, said that his heart and loyalties were rooted in Quaker Philadelphia, which he criticized so harshly. As poet Phyllis McGinley wrote, perhaps in astonishment, "Some love Paris and some Purdue."

"The answers are not to be found in conventional 20th-century analysis." I think 21st-century analysis can explain more than this implies. For example, though these only scratch the surface, see Before Glaeser, "Urban Economics Was Dried Up" or The New York Paradox which "helps us to understand how New York City moved in 30 years from the humiliation of near bankruptcy to being the dominant city on earth." In any case, it will take a lot more than this to convince me that a theory of urban development that uses "cunning and combativeness" and the supremacy of particular cultures as its primary explanatory variables dominates or even augments existing theoretical explanations of urban success.

Comments

[reason]

Interesting that this comes a conservative think tank. Ultra-liberal Boston and New York are successful because of their culture? Bet that sells well in Georgia.

I think Jane Jacobs has more to offer here.

[calmo]

The role of city states as economic entities alluded to here It starts to explain, in a way that mere fiscal analysis does not, why Miami has become the gateway to Latin America, why Los Angeles rules the Pacific Rim and why Chicago controls the Midwest.makes me forget about the particular Boston-Philidelphia comparison.
But thisWhat flourishing cities often have in common, instead, are two crucial cultural characteristics: combativeness and cunning.tells me I'm going to get a wall-papering description of the structure.
And isn't this pretty:Cunning and combativeness, however, often restore cities financially without making them many new friends ... But what makes cities successful -- or even just lovable -- can seldom be quantified. Even Baltzell, who admired the mind and achievements of Puritan Boston, said that his heart and loyalties were rooted in Quaker Philadelphia, which he criticized so harshly. As poet Phyllis McGinley wrote, perhaps in astonishment, "Some love Paris and some Purdue."
The WSJ, not the paper it once was.

[Emmanuel]

And it helps us to understand how New York City moved in 30 years from the humiliation of near bankruptcy to being the dominant city on earth.

This view is a very Amerocentric one not supported by any facts provided. It is London, not New York, that is the financial capital of the world for instance.

[Richard]

Emmanuel: The comment about London is spot on.

And if it was the Brahmins of Boston which made the city so successful, what happened to Providence? Surely it to should be a thriving little town in the same manner.

I find the assertions made in the essay largely untestable - essentially, they are an expression of faith and vague language.

[Ken Houghton]

London has Eurobonds because the food in Frankfurt is even worse.

calmo - It's a WSJ commentary; the part they give away because paying people to read it would be unseemly.

Boston is "Hollywood's idea of a hip, fabulous place to live"? In what world? Downtown Boston looks like a cleaner Newark, and anyone who thinks Somerville is "fabulous" probably thinks those frozen things from Lender's are "bagels."

[save the rustbelt]

A better way to test the thesis might be to compare Detroit and Chicago.

Chicago is relatively healthy and Detroit is dying.

Why?

Chicago bet on finance, Detroit on autos.

Corruption in Chicago tends to keep city services working, corruption in Detroit does not.

Feel free to add on...............

[t11]

It would be interesting to look at the relationship between the various cities and their respective hinterlands.

Do the Cities create wealth or do they accumulate wealth by taxing the hinterlands? For example, does New York benefit because of overcharging the hinterlands finance fees? Does Paris benefit by talking in most of France's tax dollars and recycling them in Paris? Is concentration of head offices in one City healthy?

As to the comparison of Chicago and Detroit, could it be the auto industry was forced to compete and the finance industry is largely protected?

[t11]

Inner city comparisions are always difficult. Size is critical as scale becomes very important. Do you compare the central city of the metro area?

Rust Belt - for some relative info on Detroit try Wendall Cox at http://www.rentalcartours.net/rac-detroit.pdf

You might not like Cox's views but he has interesting (and often surprising) statistics.

[dryfly]

STRB - Chicago has a lot of auto industry, still does... take a drive west of O'Hare to say Elk Grove Village. But it's in the parts biz not the final assembly so much.

The difference was that even more than finance - Chicago bet on TRANSPORTATION. First water, then rails, then roads & now air. Compare O'Hare with DMA for ease of flying to either London or Tokyo. No comparison.

The transportation hub lead to finance (from grain trading days). A natural progression.

And to a certain extent that is still the case.

Why do you think Boeing moved the HQ there? It was to be in the shadow of O'Hare as much as anything - where east really meets west in modern terms.

And it isn't just the mega corps either. Many of those 'mid-sized' mfg companies around Rosemount & EGV are as comfortable shipping parts south to the maquillas as they are shipping them east to Detroit...

And they all have satellite facilities all over, even in Mexico, China, you name it. I know, I work with a lot of them.

Likewise the traders, financiers & such in Chicago had ties reaching waaaaay out onto the Prairie via rail & across the water from the Great Lakes & down the Mississippi to the Gulf for over a century. The place looks land locked but it is anything but and never really was.

Minneapolis is very similar but a much smaller version.

I'd say the thing that made Chicago different was the way it embraced transportation long before 'globalization' was a word. They've been one of the winners in this game (though not everyone in Chicago has done well).

As a result it has a very different feel from NY - I have friends & family in both - I like the Chicago feel a lot more. Much of NYC is weird, feels unreal with Manhattan the worst of it. Chicago is 'neighborhoods'... even down to the Lake and Near Northside. My daughter brought her NYC area boy friend out to Chicago for the first time this summer & it blew him away... had no idea how livable it was. He said he'd never want to live in NYC again... but after visiting Chicago, he'd move back in a minute.

BTW - I am NOT a Chicago native, nor do I live there. I do business in and around the area for the last 20 years. I am NOT employed by 'da mayor' nor have any political ties. It's just a damned nice city - rare for a city so large.

[happyjuggler0]

Boston has a couple of advantages.

One is that it has been the mutual fund capital of the US since they were basically invented in the 1920's. It is hard to break up city clusters like that even when a city does stupid things. The firms are there because that is where the players are; the players are there because that is where the firms are. Most companies when they go public, they go on a road show and tout their IPO to potential buyers, and due to Boston's mutual fund dominance it is a requisite stop. The fact that these folks stop in Boston gives anyone there and edge over a city such as Philly for example.

The other edge that Boston (and area) have is colleges/universities. Harvard, MIT, BU, BC, Northeastern, etc. This is also an edge that is hard to destroy by stupid city/state governance. A lot of the best students go to Harvard because it is perceived to be one of the best in the country. Since it has a lot of the best students going in, it also turns out a lot of the best students going out, thus the reputation.

[Publicus]

As a former New Yorker who has lived in Phladelphia since 1991, I can tell you unequivocally that Ms. Vitullo-Martin knows absolutely nothing about Philadelphia.

Aside from overall snide tone of her opinion, her writing is also factually incorrect. For example, rather than having few good old building standings, Philadelphia has thousands of colonial-era brick homes, perfectly restored in downtown Philadephia (Society Hill area.)

I don't have the patience to dissect the rest of her numerous errors, but I caution anyone against taking her rant as anything scholarly or serious.

[anne]

Agreed; the article is mere foolishness with no hint of cunning though an underlying combativeness.

[save_the_rustbelt]

dryfly:

You pretty well confirm what I thought, just tried to get the conversation going.

I enjoy both NYC and Chicago, doubt I could live in either (unless I had a ton of money).

You might appreciate the latest Brookings Inst. paper on the Great Lakes ("North coast") region and what it needs to modernize.