Sunday, January 27, 2013
Reading 6_Opportunity Urbanism_Due Feb 28
This reading is more specific to Houston because it is a report conducted for the city. But, considering the work you are doing in your Community Blog, this will be helpful to you to think about the framework, information they gather and observations they make. It is quite long, but many graphics, so it won’t take more than an hour or so to read.
Read the entire paper/report. After you have done this, please read in reread the chapter title pages on pages 7, 16, 19, 27, 49, 63, and 77.
Then, consider cities you have read about in the report, traveled to in your travels, lived in, and know about through other reading sources. What do you think about the idea presented towards Opportunity Cities - these American Cities of the future? Do you find validity in the arguments towards this definition? How does this impact the way you think about cities in America and their future in a competitive global market?
-Prof. Torres-MacDonald
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Reading 6 Opportunity Urbanism
ReplyDeleteWhen the author states that opportunity urbanism "stresses a region's ability to create jobs, offer affordable housing, and present entrepreneurial openings to a growing and highly diverse population as the surest signs of urban vibrancy" Houston certainly comes to mind. While some apparently argue that cities survive based on the ability to attract the wealthiest if individuals, and Houston certainly has a wealthy base, I believe that the argument luring people with "urban amenities, social attitudes and cultural offerings" is more to Houston's taste. The ever-growing fields of energy and medicine have sealed the fate of Houston. The city can do nothing but grow. It seems the goal to attract intelligence and entrepreneurial spirits as well as to educate those within the city limits already. This double action creates a city that promotes education and the creation of a middleclass.
Houston's origins as a city built on fertile ground with plenty of natural resources becomes secondary to the fact that it started out, as most cities on the water, as a port city where water based transportation of goods and people became critical to its growth. A strong initial investment in infrastructure helped grow the city. Its status now is somewhat more arguable, but for the time when it saw the greatest growth, the city was aptly structured.
The Jane Jacobs quote about cities creating their middle class rather than luring it in is truly evident here. Especially after the political tone of last semester, it become apparent that Houston is trying to educate all of it citizens so they won't have to get workers from elsewhere, not when there is such a large class of people that given the chance will fill voids in the medical and engineering fields, as well as other prominent industries in the city. This goal will also raise the average income level of citizens, which in turn creates a better and more friendly city, both for visitors and residents. I do not believe a city can or will continue to succeed with only an elite class to rely on. There have to be people of all classes, incomes and education levels to keep a city alive and functioning.
A city's economy needs to be self-sustaining and growing for the foreseeable future. For instance, although Houston started in an oil boom, it has already adapted to make itself not a city of oil, but a city of energy. So when the oil finally runs out, the city's economy will not recede, but change and grow. It has also invested in the medical field which can only grow as the population grows. Other cities, such as Detroit, have economies based on one thing, and when the economy collapsed, so did the city. Houston has protected itself from such downfalls by investing in energy, technology and health.
-Cynthia
When it comes to how Houston is described in a global setting, I believe this reading is completely wrong to even question its standing. Perhaps it's because this writing was completed in 2007, but Houston has a huge voice in the global marketplace. It energy sector demands great attention. And the mix of cultures and people here testifies to its draw from other parts of the globe. Perhaps it's not known in the same way as NY, but Houston is well known and it in the middle of recreating the way it is viewed. I believe this city is viewed differently from other in the US by foreigners. Houston is more open and accepting of the entrepreneurial spirit than a city like NY could even hope to address. Houston may be in Texas, and Texas may have an image problem worldwide, but Houston is exempting itself from that image and creating a new one.
ReplyDeleteAccording to what I learned from last semester's delve into politics, Houston is doing everything it can to improve education, infrastructure and economic growth. Having already shined as an example of fortitude during the last economic downturn, Houston is obviously doing something right. And its projected growth over the next 20-50 years is astounding but logical. Houston being labeled as "the place where people go to get ahead" seems to hold water. Even with the influx of less educated poor people during hurricane Katrina, Houston thrives on.
As Houston continues to grow it may one day see a time when its residents have risen to all challenges and poverty and uneducated citizens are minimal. With the growth of the area rapidly occurring and the middle and upper class areas expanding, gentrification is a readily visible side effect. Whether this change is going to harm the mix of people within the city limits is yet to be seen. If these people can improve their own lives in the same rapid fire motions, then they may very well be able to stay, or at least return to the inner city they grew from, the city that grew from them.
-Cynthia
The ability to create jobs, offer affordable housing, and be diversely entrepreneurial accurately describes Houston, thus I would agree that Houston is an Opportunity City. One of the things that impressed me most about the city of Houston is that I felt like race did matter if you wanted to succeed in that city. There were many prominent individuals from all sorts of ethnic backgrounds that were successful, educated, and in positions of authority. Houston is an engine of upward social mobility for the entire spectrum of its citizens.
ReplyDeleteI believe that according to the definition of Opportunity Urbanism in the reading that it is Houston’s time to shine and that it is positioned to be the most prominent Opportunity City of the future. Much of the immigration that New York faced in the 1930s is a present condition within Houston. The Gulfton area of Houston is often regarded as the new Ellis Island because of the major influx of immigrants. Also, according to recent Houston Chronicle, Houston is now the most diverse city in the United States. This is why Rice’s Dr. Klineberg claims that much of what is happening now in Houston will happen to the rest of the nation and that other cities will look to Houston to resolve upcoming urban issues.
Houston has enormous assets in terms of Opportunity Urbanism. It sits on an a fresh water aquifer, sits adjacent to some of the riches oil and gas reserves, possesses one of the nation’s strongest economies, and has very affordable housing compared to superstar cities. It is the Opportunity City. The Kinder Urban Research Institute’s Houston Area Survey has demonstrated that the vast majority Houston’s residents share a common belief that if you work hard in Houston you will eventually succeed and it seems to transcend into the ambience of the city.
Houston’s energy sector is a huge asset that will keep it globally competitive for decades to come, but the city also reassures its global competitiveness with the diversification of its economy. The Texas Medical Center is a perfect example of Houston’s diverse economy. Because of these strong economic bases Houston is free to further diversify its economy into other sectors that correspond to its equally diverse citizens.
I believe that Decarte’s quote of Amsterdam as an “inventory of the possible” is applicable to Houston. The city attempts to apply the addressed basics of a good economy. Recently Houston passed bonds to improve HISD schools and also passed bonds that would allow HCC to educate and train more people. The housing there is affordable compared to the superstar cities. Parks and recreation are becoming a major quality of life issue that is also luring more people to the city especially now with the passing of referendums such as Proposition B which would connect the city’s bayous. Houston is also currently working on expanding their metro lines in order to serve more areas.
All these issues discussed help me examine how another city does or can apply Opportunity Urbanism. I also believe that West Texas cities can and will learn from the successes of Opportunity Cities like Houston and Dallas and eventually employ those models to further advance in this world that is becoming more urban every day.
Emmanuel Castrellon
I found “Opportunity Urbanism” by Joel Kotkin to be a very interesting reading, even though it was quite lengthier than the other ones we have read; the information provided was of much interest to me personally. Something that I really appreciated was the use of statistical graphs, facts, and overall the reputable information provided in the report to support the information. All this information helps the reader to have a clear understanding that opportunity cities will be the protagonist cities of the upcoming future.
ReplyDeleteIn the reading, two types of cities were clearly defined. The superstar megacities such as: New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco and Chicago among others, and the opportunity cities such as: Houston, Dallas, Phoenix, and Las Vegas. Superstar cities as described in the reading are cities that accommodate the upper classes and those who serve them. Superstar cities are becoming too expensive for middle income individuals and families. Usually these cities have a homogeneous economy meaning that they are well known for a specific business they do. For example Chicago is well known for food production business and Los Angeles for the entertainment business. On the other hand, the concept of opportunity urbanisms as defined by Kotkin “stresses a region’s ability to create jobs, offer affordable housing, and present entrepreneurial openings to a growing and highly diverse population as the surest signs of urban vibrancy”. Generally these cities are driven by a diversified economy. This means that they do not have a single dominant signature industry. The perfect example of these types of cities is Houston, a city that started as an oil industry city and later emerged as the predominant center of the energy industry and as the nation’s largest port.
I support the idea presented towards opportunity cities; they open doors not only to the wealthiest and highest skilled individuals, but for a diverse audience no matter what their social status is. Kotkin’s research presents the facts that superstar cities are not growing as fast as opportunity cities, and in some cases are decreasing in size. Affordability and the lack of job opportunities push the educated people and new migrants to find jobs and living in the opportunity cities. Cities need to think about the future; America is becoming a very diverse country and cities need to accommodate for diversified cultures. Only the cities that would provide the opportunities for all these new comers from different cultures will succeed among the other cities.
However, because of the rapid growth and increasingly diverse demographics it is not easy to become or maintain the title of “opportunity city”. It takes a lot of effort and challenges. As stated in the reading, in order for opportunity cities to maintain themselves with the title need to have high levels of job opportunities, a commitment to a basic infrastructure development, and educational resources. Houston successfully surpassed these challenges when it had to accommodate people from New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina. This was a diversified group of people, some from the upper class and others from a different social status. The point here is that the city of Houston provided with the opportunities this people could not get anymore in the city of New Orleans.
I have not had the chance to travel to many cities in the United States, I have been to Dallas, Las Vegas and Miami, But since I have just been to those places for visiting reasons I never demonstrated attention to the overall position of those cities in relation to this reading. In my opinion these three cities have a diverse population, but I cannot make conclusions out of just that fact. It is actually good to know that the cities I plan to live in a near future such as Houston or Dallas are classified as opportunity cities. This makes me feel relieved that I would not have any problem because there will be the opportunity to make a good living.
Luis Velasco
The reading “Opportunity Urbanism” by Joel Kotkin presents well thought out ideas of what a city needs in order to become the place people want to go for better opportunities. The ideas presented I believe are valid and is something cities should be considering. The reading describes an opportunity city as rapidly growing, diverse population, foreign attraction, affordable housing, a good education system, a skilled workforce, and a global economy. Examples of current opportunist cities are Houston, Dallas, and Phoenix.
ReplyDeleteHe compares these opportunity cities to superstar cities which are more like New York City, San Francisco and Chicago. These superstar cities have low growth rates, high housing prices, and are no longer as attractive to live in. The superstar city San Francisco has always attracted me. I feel that I it is a place I would like to live and experience for a while. However, I would never move there because I know that San Francisco does not promote an affordable quality of life. You may get paid a little more, but it’s not enough to make up for the extreme housing prices. This is the reality of superstar cities that are no longer attracting as many people as before.
It is important to note that these superstar cities once were opportunist cities. I really liked how Kotkin talked about how New York City used to be an opportunity city where it attracted people who wanted to better their lives. This helped me to better understand what an opportunity city is since many people came to America through Ellis Island. I would think that America was once known as an opportunity country where many immigrants fled. However, New York is currently a very unaffordable place to live. He claims that Houston needs to keep its housing prices relatively low in order to not become a superstar city in the future. I would think that Houston’s prices will inevitably rise especially as the city becomes more popular and starts to attract a more wider global market. As Houston becomes more attractive it will develop into what Kotkin calls a cultural center that will attract tourists. I believe that as the city evolves into a cultural center it will drive prices up. People will know they can charge more for their property because the value will have increased due to its environment. Houston may be an opportunity city now, but I believe history is bound to repeat itself making the city a “superstar city”.
I have only been to Houston once so I do not know the city well enough to analysis it. The graphs represented in this report were very helpful in understanding some aspects of the city. I would like to know if many people actually live in the city or on the outskirts. I would think that an important aspect of an opportunity city would be where you afford to live inside the city or in the suburbs. For me I would want to be able to walk or ride my bike to work. I would not want to be forced to live in the suburbs due to it being more affordable. For this reading I wish I would have known more about Houston or Dallas since they are both considered opportunity cities. I have only really lived in Austin, and now Lubbock. I don’t think Austin is big enough to be considered an opportunity city but I do feel that it shares some of the same qualities, especially the hipster vibe. Maybe one day Austin could develop into an opportunity city as described in this reading.
Danielle Smyth
Opportunity Urbanism is well explained in detail by Joel Kotkin. He demonstrates with facts and examples how Houston among other cities have grown dramatically since the year 1960 up to today. The city of Houston in specific is used as the main example to explain what an "Opportunity City" is and how it could grow in the future. I agree with all his statements, however, I feel that he is being a little bias with Houston's amenities. This quote caught my attention from the reading "good strong families will be the success of the city" which I believe it is true.
ReplyDeleteThe above mentioned quote is important in my opinion in the perspective of the future of the opportunity city. Families who are strong are well educated and have a good future that can help their communities improve. Professor Richard Florida describes urban future as "creative class of young highly educated workers". On the other hand, Kotkin explains the "Superstar City" are becoming a luxury. These kinds of cities such as New York are becoming very expensive to live in, even for the middle class people. Boston, New York, and San Francisco have the lowest national percentage of households with children. This helps explain my point of strong families for future growth.
Opportunity cities such as Houston, Phoenix, Dallas, Las Vegas, and more have the ability to create more jobs, offer affordable housing and openings to a growing and highly diverse population. This creates the opportunity for population growth over time and Americas urbanization future for these kinds of cities. For example Houston in 1960 had a population of 1,648,286 and by the year 2006 Houston had a tremendous growth span to 5,539,949. Superstar cities do the complete opposite to control population growth by reducing job opportunities and raising house costs. Superstar cities are more concentrated in money and attraction, and opportunity cities concentrate in the quality of life.
The question is, can opportunity cities become world cities? In my opinion both superstar cities and opportunity cities have the ability in becoming a world city, it only depends how the city connects with the rest of the world. For example, again Houston appears to have the space to increase significantly for international trade. I see Houston with a high potential of becoming a world city due to all of its amenities such as oil and the large port it has and more.
"A great city by its very nature allow people to do what they could never achieve elsewhere". I agree with this quote but it could apply to any city in the world. I previously mentioned that Kotkin is being bias with Houston in my opinion as he describes all of Houston's positive changes over time. Every city, small or large, famous or not, have its very own uniqueness. I'm going to use my hometown El Paso as an example. El Paso is a fairly large city but is not as famous as the mentioned cities in the reading. For the past few years, El Paso's population has grown dramatically since a lot of families from Mexico have moved over the border as well as the increase of the military base where thousands of soldiers have moved to El Paso. Today the city has many future plans for expansion and becoming an opportunity city. To conclude my point, I think that any city has its own reasons and features to grow and have the opportunity to grow over time to the extreme as Houston is today.
Julen Arruti
What is Opportunity Urbanism? It is the " openness to outsiders,a diverse and highly entrepreneurial economy, a friendly business climate, a commitment to continued infrastructure development (particularly mobility, and a basically positive attitude toward growth," said by Joel Kotkin (pg 9). I believe that this opportunity urbanism is a great way for cities to move toward in the near future because of its ability to adapt to change and create a steady economy. Thus allowing the United States as a whole to have a better economy. From living in Dallas area, visiting Houston, Austin, Los Alamos, NM, and other cities I believe Houston is the example that exemplifies what is described as an opportunity city. Even Dallas shows some characteristics. On a global level, Houston came up more in a conversation than lets say Dallas but it follows still behind what they call the elite cities like New York, Chicago, and San Francisco. What I thought was a good example from this report was Hurricane Katrina incident. I remember a lot of people went to Houston but being in Plano, some came there. All the schools around me were opening to helping out. Areas around Dallas are still expanding with growth and the same with Lubbock. An ability to change will help each community strive as a whole.
ReplyDeleteIs there validity towards the arguments made in this report? I would agree that there is a lot of facts and truth behind the future of American cities in this idea of opportunity. This world is changing quickly and this form of a city can help the US as a whole. Its not all about a city but it is about the different cities coming together.
For our future, I think the opportunity city will need to be incorporated into every city. Because globally the US is declining from what I have read online. Now that does not mean that it is true. In a way, I think the Houston is a prime example on how it can help us globally with it adaptability to new markets. This concept also helps out with the problem of unemployment because it can help create jobs and opportunities for people. If the predictions are correct then the United States will have to do something if populations of the country will exceed 400 million by 2050.
Matthew Thoma
“We believe it is clear that the regions that will continue to grow and flourish will be those that address the basics of a good economy: a good educational system, an educated and skilled workforce, affordable housing, parks, recreation opportunities, good transportation, and access to high-speed communications. These cities will also need a visionary leadership that recognizes what it takes to sustain economic growth, and a community spirit for getting things done.” I think this statement was a good way to sum up the article/ analysis. While a lot of the thought and claims about what makes an opportunity city stand out were somewhat true and good for the aesthetic of those areas. I believe that it is the ability of a city to provide easy access to what people want that makes a city work, and creates the opportunity that is expressed in Houston, Dallas, Atlanta, and Charlotte.
ReplyDeleteI think for the most part that cities culture/ history and demographics play a part in the appeal of a city, but in the end, I believe people are smart enough to know where success can be found and what will help them move upward socially. Houston provides a lot of different ‘aesthetics,’ you can live in an urban city, or in a suburban town, there is a lot to do here for all types of individual likes and dislikes. And while its not the most organized, it has a messy vitality that can change easily. It works off of a base infrastructure that is adaptable and allows for manipulation. So businesses can thrive and grow quickly, housing can be built quickly and economics of an area can change within 10 years were as other cities may take longer. I think of East Downtown and the rapid development of housing that has taken place just in 5 years, It is a rapidly growing area that now needs grocery, shops, businesses that will help it become a great place to live, easily accessible and close to entertainment and work. All that to say, I do find validity in the concluding statements, that the city of the future provides this rapid change, and easy access, with a foundation of good infrastructure to base it on.
I do however, think that with the advancement of communication and the fact that work can now be done not just in an office or in a particular city. Places that people can live are pretty open and are determined by amenities and entertainment, ‘aesthetic.’ I think we see that trend in Houston with the new emphasis on beautifying public space and the bayous. There is an incredible amount of emphasis on developing places that are beautiful and attract young and energetic professionals. All these issues play a role in the competitive nature of the city. There has to be opportunity, infrastructure, flexibility, and it needs to be beautiful..
Zachary Mitchell
"Opportunity Urbanism" sets clear the ideal state in which a city needs to reach in order to manifest limitless opportunities people wish to obtain. This notion of creating place becomes important in discussing the development of a particular city. I am inclined to agree with the ideas presented by Joel Kotkin as they should be the goals any city needs to take into consideration. A city that seeks to give out chances is no doubt a city that contains an well rounded mix of population, a skilled set workforce, a good education system, particularly importantly is the affordable housing and a good global economy. In discussing cities within Texas: Dallas, and Houston are primary examples showing of opportunist seeking cities.
ReplyDeleteUnlike the already distinguished cities such as New York, San Francisco, and Chicago that have already attained such a high status of characteristics, the former examples above still have a chance at developing this notion of "Opportunity Urbanism". Of course the generic superstar city of New York has always captured the dreams of many giving this idea of the "city life" but it also comes with a price of high quality living; other cities may be known as well but may have not have a good quality of living. The major cities are in such high demand that everything else becomes that much more expensive to afford a general life. This result has caused a distortion in the many who beforehand wanted to seek opportunities. Superstar cities are high dollar cities.
Were these cities always so expensive to live at? Of course not, as Kotkin conveys they used to opportunist developing cities when at one point the general idea of New York city attracted the many. Given the fact that New York is based mostly upon a foreign population that sought refuge or a new life its clear as to why it was once called an opportunist city, however, it now comes with a high price, literally. Joel states that the cities whom yet to not convert to a superstar city must maintain this balance by keeping certain aspects at an advantage to the population. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem like no matter what happens a city such as San Antonio or Houston will eventually give into becoming a superstar city primarily because of popularity and the economy. It really becomes a problem when a city hits a wall in which Kotkin calls a cultural center, he uses this phrase to imply that when a city hits this point, prices in pretty much everything rise up, thus, popularity becomes unavoidable. The costs of living will surely go up and the desire to be a part of such an "opportunist city" will fade away, or to be more exact, the city itself will lose it's integrity of being known as an opportunist city.
The factual information presented by Joel aids in the general comprehension of Houston in its condition now. Given these facts, I would say he is accurate as I have been to Houston several times and have looked closely at the details of conditions as well. Houston certainly is diverse on many levels and its definitive areas in where living is affordable is clearly seen. It also has potential to be one of the greatest opportunist cities that could set as an example for years to come.
-Martin
This reading more or less explains my entire thought process as it relates to my decision to move from Denver to Lubbock and then Denver to Houston. After careful consideration I decided to go for a cost effective option that had a higher potential for employment opportunity. I had a chance to study in San Francisco, Denver and some other preferred places but I was concerned about the welfare of our economy and my debt to earning potential ratio.
ReplyDeleteThere is a lot of opportunity in a lot of cities; opportunity is where you make it. Although I do believe educated, talented people are capable of anything and super star cities will never stop attracting new residence, there are simple economic factors that make some cities more appealing than others.
Quality of life may be sacrificed or increased by providing competitive finical opportunity when compared to a moderate cost of living. Cultural diversity, transportation cost, the natural landscape and local amenities are big factors for opportunity cities. This quality of life concern is something that is very real; when you visit a city, one may get a strong taste of the culture. A city makes a positive or negative impact but these generalities are typically consistent. The east coast is overcrowded and hard to break in until you build a social network. I would agree that there is a trend for western movement as well as movement into opportunity cities such as Phoenix and Houston. As Steven Kleinberg stated in his research, 80 percent of people living in Houston believe that if you work hard enough you can succeed, compared to only 65 percent in New York City. After reading through this report many things jumped out at me, such as the trends associated with superstar cities. Due to high prices and regulations, Gyourko predicts that growth and job creation will slow in cities such as LA, New York and San Francisco. Super star cites will only headquarter the elite and upper management corporate branches. The affluent residence sometimes, “pulls up the drawbridge” to keep the new comers out but in all reality this is a small fraction. The higher cost of living and job competition makes it increasingly difficult for the middle class to infiltrate historical international meccas. These manifested boundaries are physical while compared to opportunity cities where the boundaries are thin, almost non-existent. All the opportunity cities have the ability to attract skilled workers from superstar cities due to cost of living. While some people may never consider moving from the Bay Area or New York City to a place like Houston, this population is increasingly marginal as the cost of living continues to rise in established metropolitan areas. As the city grows the middle class grows. Opportunity cities will continue to grow quickly because of per capita income compared to cost of living. This is a natural growth cycle, as a city becomes more attractive to an increasingly diverse population, the cost of living rises.
While reading this report I found more validity than fallacy, there are pros and cons but overall this report makes some very accurate observations. The graphics were very helpful, although I would love to see this report for 2013-2014. After interviewing with an Architect from New York he mentioned a recent article in the New York Times that stated, you must borrow 40,000 dollars a year to be a young practicing architectural designer in New York City. I thought to myself how could this be, but then I went and researched median salaries for architects in Houston compared to that in New York City and discover it was not even a fair fight. According to one study, architecture salaries were actually higher in Houston by a couple thousand dollars a year. This was a complete slap in the face and insult to the ones responsible for the devaluation of our services just to live in New York City, or living with their mom in New York City. There will always be the young people that go against the grain that will work for nothing just to say they have done it. Trust me I was one of them. Sustainability eventually becomes more concerning than a cool place to live. Compare earning potential to cost of living being doubled or tripled and it just doesn’t add up. We live in world that requires money and when you have money quality of life is better and allows for more growth. Money doesn’t solve all your problems but it sure does make your quality of life better regardless of the circumstances.
ReplyDeleteThe idea of the opportunity city holds true validity in my view. I have seen Houston grow my entire life so I see how it could be considered a opportunity city, but I also remember a saying that says " if you make it, they will come". The reason Houston is doing good in the economy is because they are creating jobs there, they are welcoming people into their city. As long as the city as a whole keeps doing this it will continue to thrive. New York and some of these other super cities are on a downwards slope and are becoming more class specific because of the cost of living. The cost of living in Houston is low, the wages are higher, it’s the steps that Houston is taking to keep it this way. The article mentions Denver and I still see that as a city that is doing what it can to grow, last I visited there I was talking with a architect in the area, and he was telling me how his firm was renovating old factories and making them into low income housing. These buildings were not just run down apartment building but it became a nice place to live. As far as the future of the cities in the United States goes, I believe that any city could be an opportunity city. What the past shows is that there is always room for opportunity and growth. That’s why the colonist moved west, that is why people are coming to Houston now. I believe strongly that Houston as well as some of these other cities that are emerging as opportunity cities will be able to compete at a global market scale. I also believe that if a city is willing to put in the work and make the right decisions they too will become an opportunity city.
ReplyDeleteBradley Rich
Opportunity Urbanism, by Joel Kotkin, was a very informative and thought provoking reading. Kotkin defines opportunity urbanism as a region’s “ability to create jobs, Offer affordable housing, and present entrepreneurial openings to a growing and highly diverse population.” Cities that follow this definition are cities similar to Houston, Dallas, Phoenix, Atlanta, and Charlotte. The main aspects that are within an opportunity city are an entrepreneurial economy, less intense competition, and openness for change and growth. They are growing cities with a mixed demographic that do not fall into the ‘elitist’ attitude of superstar cities. Superstar cities, such as New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco and Boston cater more to the more wealthy and skilled individuals. Upward mobility does not happen as easily in these cities and the price is too expensive to achieve the definition of ‘opportunity cities’.
ReplyDeleteThe ideas presented towards opportunity cities in this reading seem to be a rather simple model to follow. A city that creates an environment for growth and success opens up a window of opportunity for those who move into that city. One example of growth that I enjoyed reading about is the idea of Urban Incubators. These incubators are used as a means of social advancement for entrepreneurs within a city. In my hometown, Tulsa Oklahoma, they have recently developed a live-work business incubator just north of the downtown area. In this small complex, each building unit is a unique business in the front with a small studio apartment in the back. Different restaurants and retail businesses such as clothing, art, and custom furniture design are just a few of the businesses that were created here. It is successful in strengthening the economy of north Tulsa, which is a lower income part of town. The people here enjoy having a nice, new place to go to while the entrepreneurs see great amounts of growth with the popularity of this new live work space. I believe that implementing more of these types of strategies can help almost any city to have some sense of an ‘opportunity city.’
Although I have only visited Houston once, through this reading I can clearly see how Houston exemplifies an ideal opportunity city. In my opinion, Houston is much more of an international city than Dallas, and my hometown of Tulsa. It seems as if the city of Houston has steadily built a strong middle class with a diverse group of individuals. In the reading, graphs show an increasing income per capita in the city of Houston. It is interesting to note that this is higher than some superstar citites such as Los Angeles and Chicago. The high price of living in the superstar regions is essentially stunting the growth of these cities all together. Although people like to move to these places because of their glamorous reputation, the majority of Americans cannot afford to live in these regions.
The arguments made in this reading on Opportunity Urbanism seem to be valid in my opinion. I am also glad that they addressed issue of infrastructure and transportation as well. I believe that this gets overlooked far too often by designers. A city that functions well for the middle class and promotes economic growth should also have a strong transportation system. Many people would prefer to be able to live close enough to walk to work or hop on a train and not have to drive a 30-40 minute commute to work every day. In order for American cities to compete with the global market this is one thing that must improve. While studying abroad in Italy, it was very easy to catch a train and visit another city. Here in America, to visit another city takes lots of planning and money for flights, taxi’s, or rental cars. I believe that city infrastructure for transportation is one thing that we Americans can improve on.
Jessica Badoe
Opportunity Urbanism : An Emerging Paradigm for the 21st Century by Joel Kotkin was an enjoyable read, and I found the information to be very insightful. As an individual who is nearing graduation and is beginning to think about where to live and work, this reading gave an interesting perspective on where things are happening - where the jobs are. This idea is further expressed by Crystal Walker on page 64, “This is a place where people go to get ahead… You don’t have that cloud over you here.” People want to have opportunities that are why people first came to America. If there is a places that offer more opportunities, people are drawn to it, and will move there.
ReplyDeleteThis article is accurate in my opinion when it talks about Opportunity cities. Kotkin states, “Because of widening differences in housing and other costs, there has been a decisive demographic tilt towards cities such as Phoenix, Dallas, Atlanta, Charlotte, and Houston.” I don’t hear about people moving to Chacago or New York City very often, but I know many people that have moved to these cities of opportunity. I have been to all of the Opportunity Cities listed except Charlotte, and I can kind of see how people are drawn to them because of their opportunities. Kotkin states on page 78, ”American cities have lifted perhaps millions of residents out of ignorance, poverty, and desperation into the middle, and for some, the upper classes.” I think this is in part true, but I would still argue that these cities have not solved these problems. There are still a large number of poverty cases in all of these cities.
As far as the ‘superstar’ cities are concerned, I have only been to Chicago, and it was when I was rather young. “A compelling argument can be made that the disproportionate loss of warehouse and other blue-collar employment from New York City can be traced to a basic reluctance to build significant new infrastructure, while Charleston and Savannah were willing to do so.” (Kotkin 65) I could see this as a possibility, our society is ever changing, and some of these “big’ cities are not keeping up.
After reading this article, I can see that cities like Dallas should continue to grow over the next several years. I think there are currently a lot of opportunities in both of these cities and they should continue to produce even more over the next several years. Texas should continue to grow as a whole because of its pro business stance; I would not be suppressed if many companies that are not in Texas begin to look at the possibility of relocating over the next 10 years. It will be very interesting to see how that changes the dynamics of these opportunity cities.
-Joshua Pape
"Every bee in the hive is actively employed in the search for honey, neither art, science, learning nor pleasure can seduce them from the pursuit"- Frances Trollope.
ReplyDeleteThis quote is metaphoric; it goes against all odds to say opportunity cities by their nature, seek to only attract individuals who are makes me think of New york city.
I observed that the positive mentality of the people living in these opportunity cities go a long way to improve such cities.
"Cities don't lure the middle class, they create it"; this view should not be out of. The standard of living in any city/economy is a continuous evolving cycle because at the end of the day an individuals quality of life is determined by what he can afford.
All aspects of attaining "urban success" noted by Kotkin is quite impressive and I find validity in the arguments .
I see these opportunity cities becoming world cities, especially the international trade aspect.
This really changes my view about cities in America and the global market, knowing that they both work hand in hand. A successful city will always develop a truly competitive workforce thus affecting the global market.
Opportunity Urbanism offers a lot to the growing America.
Esther.
American opportunity cities can be described as regions with the ability to create jobs, offer affordable housing and present economic opportunities to its local residents as well as those migrating for a better quality of life. Joel Kotkin states that there are three different types of cities; Global Cities, those that are major global economic engines such as Paris, London, Hong Kong. Super cities; like New York, Chicago and Los Angeles who have established themselves and have a predominant expertise in a specific industry. Finally there’re the Opportunity Cities, cities such as Houston, Dallas, and Phoenix which are centers where its residents begin to shape what the identity of the city will become.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the definition of opportunity cities, Kotkin states “Great Athenian culture rested first on the economic power of the city-state, which developed through the use of military power. Great cultural capitals of later centuries—Alexandria, Rome, Venice, Florence—all began as either imperial capital or as great commercial centers.” Is critical to understand that cities evolve primarily not as a result of culture, arts, or architecture, but because of successful commercial development, wealth was the driver that created the platform for the arts and great buildings that flourished in these cities.
I believe that the fate of urban areas does depend on its ability to attract individuals with specialized skills that can begin to create these economic centers to then support the amenities associate with super cities.
“Houston exemplifies the characteristics we identify with Opportunity Urbanism. It opens itself to outsiders, it is diverse and has a highly entrepreneurial economy, it is a friendly business climate, it has a commitment to continued infrastructure development focusing on mass transit, and a positive attitude toward growth.” In regards to Houston, it has made major commitments to achieve the definition of Opportunity City. It was recently pass bonds that will allow it to attract and maintain entrepreneurs in the city. The HCC bond promotes education for the adults to fill the jobs the current industries need, such as healthcare, energy and oil. Proposition B, will create all the major bayous into linear parks that connect the city with a network of trails and bikeways. Houston has recognized the potential that is has and is moving in the right direction to eventually become a super city.
This reading presents an argument that is prevalent to the profession of urban planning today, what does the city of the future look like? I was in disbelief upon first starting this reading and seeing cities such as Phoenix, Dallas, Houston, and Charlotte compared on the same level as New York City, Chicago, Los Angeles, and San Francisco. However, the author presents many compelling argument points that support the fact that the city of the future tends to be an ‘opportunistic city’. The author defines an ‘opportunistic city’ as a city that encompasses: “openness to outsiders, a diverse and highly entrepreneurial economy, a friendly business climate... and a basically positive attitude towards growth.” I can personally attest to the fact that Houston very much falls into the category of an ‘opportunistic city’.
ReplyDeleteI moved to Houston in 2004, and during that time, Houston was very much a city that was struggling to figure out who they were. The downtown area was not very welcoming, there were areas that were considered to be eyesores by many, and there just were not many people that were interested in going to downtown Houston and staying there. However, in the past 10 or so years, Houston has undergone an exponential growth that far surpassed my expectations. I was always unclear as to what sparked this growth and this reading basically laid out all the reasons. The reason that was most interesting to the growth of Houston was when the author proclaimed that what ‘accounted for Houston’s success is an opportunistic spirit embedded in the city’s DNA’. This is something that is clearly visible today. People that live in Houston are excited and proud to live in Houston. This is especially evident when you see waves of young professionals migrating to the city. Where ten years ago, downtown was a ghost town, now you can drive downtown and see waves of people at Discovery Green Park, or at one of the many restaurants in the area. Just based on downtown alone you can see that Houston fits the requirement in the reading for urban growth which is a “commitment to basic infrastructure such as public safety, schools, roads, sewers, drainage systems, parks, recreational opportunities, telecommunications, and air facilities”. Houston has very much been involved in not only building all of these elements but renovating the ones that have been in existence.
I agree with the author in the fact that the future American cities that will have an impact in the global competitive market are the ‘opportunistic cities’. The reason for this is simply the fact that the growth in all aspects of new urbanism is something that is attractive to not only immigrants and migrants of other American cities, but to international conglomerates as well. When an international company is looking to move to a certain location they factor in a myriad of elements ranging from availability of affordable, quality housing to streetscapes. They also want to be in a city that is economically expanding. All of the things that international companies are looking for are encompassed in the definition of the ‘opportunistic city’.
In the reading Kotkin expresses his first idea of opportunity urbanism which is a “region’s ability to create jobs, offer affordable housing and present entrepreneurial openings to a growing and highly diverse population as the surest signs of urban vibrancy.” This concept of opportunity urbanism, Kotkin argues, is “an engine of upward social mobility.” These ideas are mentioned throughout the entirety of the reading and it is what makes up opportunity cities. Clearly Houston is not a superstar city compared to LA, Chicago, or New York but the rapid advancement of the city does support the fact that Houston is an opportunity city.
ReplyDeleteKotkin’s main idea of Houston as an opportunity city has validity and Houston’s ability to sustain a large population and provide jobs even in the recent harsh economic times. Houston is an ever improving and evolving city, which is supported by the 2012 election when all bond measures on the ballot passed. One of which was Proposition B which will provide a pedestrianized link among the entire city along the bayous in the next 7-10 years and provide much more green space to enjoy. Kotkin expresses in part six of the reading that “an opportunity city requires a ‘back-to-basics ‘ approach. This requires a commitment to basic infrastructure such as public safety, schools, roads, sewers, drainage systems, parks, recreational opportunities, telecommunications, and air facilities.” The bonds passed in the election covered the quality of life aspect of new park space, public safety, schools, recreational, and roads/ public transportation. Not only does the mayor believe in investment in the city but also the citizens believe in investing in the city based on the election outcome.
There are some aspects of Houston that are not mentioned in the reading that Houston is lacking but moving in the right direction. Houston’s downtown is not to the standard that a city of this size should be. However, there are measures that Houston has taken to incentivize developers especially those overseas to invest in downtown by providing grants that mediate the high cost of development downtown.
This had a large impact on the way I perceive the future of American cities. In the realm of architecture it is easy to zoom in to the macro and consider the building or context and to not consider the city as a whole in a competitive global market. There are many statistics that show Houston as a rising competitive global market but the idea of opportunity urbanism is clearly a large aspect of this competitiveness that we as architects must be conscious of. This holistic way of thinking about a city on a global spectrum is one that I had not considered until recently
Matt Vaclavik
Joel Kotkin’s “Opportunity Urbanism” discusses the multitude of factors involved for the cities of today “to be an engine of upward social mobility” so that they can become the city of tomorrow. Growth was the prominent factor discussed but the term cannot merely be described in the physical context. Entrepreneurship, or the growth of innovation, is the defining characteristic of American cities which sets them apart from others around the world. The development of these cities was done so in ways to function as the “incubators of entrepreneurship” and to serve as “beacons for the upwardly mobile.” This notion was upheld through the “creative class” paradigm, which stated that the city wasn’t guided by its middle class but that it in turn should create its middle class or the “skilled city.” Further strategies and ideals about the opportunity city were discussed as to the most effective and substantial ways that these cities could emerge: economic consideration (primarily job creation), global expansion, and policy changes in regards to expansive population growth.
ReplyDeleteAll in all, opportunity urbanism should be the model of growth in which cities follow. As a collection of ideals, this paradigm breathes, expanding and contracting, to create a form that any city could fit within. Cities can find the areas particular to their identity that these ideals relate to in order to plan and develop toward future goals. Even places such as Lubbock can take something away from the methodologies of this paper. Texas Tech within itself is taking great strides against what the paper coined as the “Brain Drain” by trying to attract larger student base but also helping to influence the development of the city so that this inflow could potentially add to the city itself.
For any city the economic factors that surround it will always be of the highest priority. Because of this, the factors of entrepreneurship should be considered closely and in turn nurtured. As Kotkin discovered the economic opportunities that city can offer, can greatly affect many of the other factors of its success. Texas, for example, is holding a much better standing in today’s economic downturn than in most states and the evidence of that is expressed through three of its largest cities maintaining a steady level of growth.
Though the future of world is uncertain, as long as America can utilize and even grow this paradigm by consistently providing future opportunities within its cities, the local as well as global standing of these places will continue to rise and compete. There is still much to be learned within the American city but for the land of opportunity the hopes still run high.
Nathan Pope
I truly found the reading “Opportunity Urbanism” by Joel Klotkin very interesting and at the same time very easy to understand with all the graphs which helps you better understand the relationship between cities. Although I recently moved to Houston I completely agree with the author when he establishes Houston as an “opportunity city”. Before moving down here I read a lot about the city from its past to its present just to better understand the type of city Houston is and simply to get more familiar with it. I found out the struggles the city faced in past years but it is quite amazing what officials have accomplished and most importantly the direction in which the city is going. I believe a great sense of vision is needed in order to accomplish such goals and also understand the capabilities the city has and how we can explode them.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I believe that the “opportunity city” is much more compelling to people than the so called superstar supercities. Opportunity cities give you the opportunity to grow in every level. As stated on the reading opportunity cities present entrepreneurial openings which means more job opportunities, also offer affordable housing which is a big issue now days. And I believe these two facts are what bring people to opportunity cities. I paid close attention to a quote in the reading stating how people agreed that in order to succeed you have to work hard. And what was really interesting was how most people in “opportunity cities” agreed with that quote unlike people from superstar supercities. And I kind of understand because we all know how pricy those cities are Los Angeles for example. Most people have to work multiple jobs just to have a descent way of living, therefore I understand how people do not see that as a way of succeeding.
Houston is taking advantage of all of its capabilities in order to attract people from other places. You see people from all races, professional from all ages, and I believe diversity play a huge role in how cities evolve. Every race has its own culture, its own ideologies, and therefore everyone can bring in their best to the table. I find this quite amazing since the last two cities in which I’ve leave in did not have this. El Paso being a border town is mainly populated by Mexican American and very few anglo or African American population. And Lubbock on the other hand is populated mainly by Caucasian , so I’ve have never really been in a place where you interact with people from all around the world and I believe this gives a culture to the city of its own.
I also appreciate how it is established in the reading that they took Houston back to the basics, and focus on the elements of infrastructure. Public safety, roads, amenities, etc, are elements which will make a city successful or not. And believe Houston pretty much checked marked every single one of these elements. Unlike El Paso which I personally believe has a lot of potential but has not accomplished it yet. Being a border town, you have a lot of opportunities you can take advantage of but I believe one of the elements it is missing is “amenities”. Most of the time El Paso make the news is because of the situation happening across the border, but it need something of its own in order to be a successful city. You don’t have a professional sport, a worldwide known museum, a huge important shopping center, even a “river walk” like in San Antonio which will attract outsiders. I truly believe the day they begin to bring some of these elements the city will grow incredibly.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete