By John Bebow - November 30, 2007
Debate sparked this month between futurists, economists, urban planners and the like over how best to ensure vibrant Michigan communities in the future.
The Southeast Michigan Council of Governments released a study on the "Millenial" generation, the much-coveted young, highly educated, mobile professionals who make up the early 21st Century "creative class" seen as so important to the future prosperity of regional economies. SEMCOG's report profiled millenials who are leaving Michigan and some of those who've found plenty of reason to stay. The report took a look at future households and found a great unmet need for walkable neighborhoods and central city areas full of entertainment, eateries and work options that can accomodate non-traditional single-person and single-parent families, young workers, and retiring baby boomers.
Then comes a column in the Wall Street Journal by author and academic Joel Kotkin arguing that the really desirable demographic for 21st Century economic development isn't single, young, millenials, but even more prosperous two-worker families in their 30s and 40s.
Finally, Lou Glazer, perhaps Michigan's best-known futurist, weighed in this morning with clarifying thoughts emailed to a variety of regional leaders across Michigan...
"We argue in our New Agenda report that high prosperity regions will have both strong central cities and suburbs... Kotkin makes this point himself in the column with his stats from Philadelphia. Young talent without children concentrating in the city, then when they have kids they move to the Philadelphia suburbs. You need both. What is new in Kotkin's column is the assertion that Millenials when they have children are highly moblie (moving from state to state, rather than predominantly within a region). The Census Bureau did not find that in the 2000 census data. If it is now true it is worth learning their decision-making process. Successful communities in the future need to be competitive in attracting and retaining all mobile talent."
One Comment
One theme evident in all references is the desire for diversity in community.
What is a community? It certainly is not the typical metropolitan area with its decaying city center and high intensity suburban environment which promotes increased vehicular use and isolation of individuals inside their cars and homes.
So, what do you do to get people out of the cars and houses? Create places where they can share their talents and skills assisting one another building a better future; a future of safe communities focused on opportunities for life long learning and personal growth for themselves and the generations that will follow. Communities where we can get to know one another, warts and all, and really need one another to prosper.
That will require all communities, and the State bureaucracies, closely look at how land use is constrained by regulation and common practice; and begin serious work on providing a framework that will embrace the goals of safety, community, life long learning and personal growth.
Things such as "Cradle to Cradle" focus of commercial enterprise (change in tax code required), village mixed use and form based zoning versus the traditional divide and conquer approach used today (local governments, regional collaboration and State level support and encouragement), a return to neighborhood school buildings with a collaborative "Essential Schools" approach to education versus the mass production high efficiency dsyfunctional pattern we have used for 130 years. (School Districts become less parochial and curriculum hardened - involve the community in education)
Finally, a change is each of our mental models from the win - lose competitive pattern to a win - win approach that has a focus on the impact of what we do today seven generations from today.
Post a Comment