Urbanophile: Midwest cities lack ambition or global "street smarts"

http://theurbanophile.blogspot.com/2...ities-are.html

I don't have an opinion on this blog post yet, but I reckon DYers will. The Urbanophile is a mighty fine source of data and news on Midwest cities, but this post is not academic. The author merely opines that Southern cities have an edge on Midwestern cities like Detroit because of their aristocratic culture that comes from a Scots-Irish ancestry. This all amounts to an especially "ambitious" culture that the Midwest lacks, according to the author. The Urbanophile also believes Southern cities know their weaknesses and make every effort to compensate for them, whereas Midwestern cities are delusional about their own greatness.

The author admits that his post has no academic grounds whatsoever, so give him credit for that.

As a former resident of cities in Arkansas, Kentucky, Mississippi, and Texas, I agree on one point: Southerners are hungry for dominance. It's the "SEC" mentality that pushes them to crave bragging rights. I've met far more go-getters and optimists while living and working in the South than when living and working in Chicago, Cleveland, or Detroit. As the leader from Charlotte, N.C., stated in the blog post: "We have a chip on our shoulder; we don't want to be second to anyone."

I've never encountered that spirit here in the Great Lakes region.

Not to say that it wasn't here. Perhaps we are victims of our own prosperity in the 20th century. Perhaps our fall from the "Premier League" will stoke the fires of ambition again.

You'all remember the Civil War?

Not weighing in on the concept because haven't ever heard this before and need to think. I will say that I think that everyone is growing to understand that the "global south" is the future - for now.

Also, I have never ever heard the Scots-Irish referred to as "aristocratic" - it seems to be a thought against history. Andy Jackson, the great president, was a subject of contempt by the old Eastern Seabord aristocrats because he was Scots-Irish. There is a book about the Scots-Irish that makes the case that the lineage is the best, most American, the lineage of warriors and unions and hard-working America. But I never heard that it is "aristocratic"!

Braggadocio? Swagger? These are supposed to be good things? Christ, that's exactly what I want--to live in a place where everyone's a [[[[[[[[[.

Or, one could argue that the South is only growing because it was so far behind everywhere else for generations. What is the author's metric of "success"?

Geez--Atlanta and Charlotte aren't even "Southern" anymore. I really don't understand where this guy is making this shit up. It's obvious he's never spent long enough time in the South to understand his subject.

The reason is simple in that many Northerners migrated to the South and brought their education and training/know-how with them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SWMAP

Not weighing in on the concept because haven't ever heard this before and need to think. I will say that I think that everyone is growing to understand that the "global south" is the future - for now.

---

Huh? The poorest region? The least educated region? Unhealthiest, highest-crime, most polluted, etc. etc.

The future is rural Mississippi?

And the parts of the South that are relatively successful are not really that Scotch-Irish or Southern anymore.

We should all strive to live in a "successful" place like Atlanta, where we can sit parked on the freeway for 3 hours a day, breathe nothing but smog, and ration our water. That sounds like a stellar quality of life, doesn't it?

Atlanta only exists in its present form because of Delta Airlines, and the generosity of the State of Georgia in building miles upon miles of pavement on which to park, er, drive, your car. It has nothing to do with behing inherently "successful".

Thanks for posting the link to my blog.

I think you hit on something, which is that there are really two separate matters:

1. The higher ambition levels of the South, or as you so aptly put it, the "hunger for dominance".

2. The historical roots of this.

I think #1 is close to indisputable, at least in certain places. My hypothesis for #2 is, of course, debatable.

As I acknowledge, much of the South is poor and backwards, but they've got a large number of cities with a track record of strong population and economic growth. I believe the ambition level is an important factor in this.

For those of you who would like to bash the South, feel free, but tearing down other's success is one of those Midwestern traits I believe to be part of the toxic part of our culture.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SWMAP

Not weighing in on the concept because haven't ever heard this before and need to think. I will say that I think that everyone is growing to understand that the "global south" is the future - for now.

Also, I have never ever heard the Scots-Irish referred to as "aristocratic" - it seems to be a thought against history. Andy Jackson, the great president, was a subject of contempt by the old Eastern Seabord aristocrats because he was Scots-Irish. There is a book about the Scots-Irish that makes the case that the lineage is the best, most American, the lineage of warriors and unions and hard-working America. But I never heard that it is "aristocratic"!

---

That's funny you say that. I come from an "aristocratic" Southern Scots-Irish family. We were from Tennessee, Virginia, and North Carolina but because of the Civil War, most of our wealth was sucked from us. Then we moved to Detroit to find better work. We owned alot of land and some, uh, well that's not go into that, pre-Civil War. My grandpa had three aunts who owned a mansion, which has since been torn down to make a highway. Our name is Rodes.

You can't take this snapshot in time and use that to make a judgment that one place is more resilient than the other. The South hasn't been a widely prosperous region since they were forced to give up their free labor 150 years ago. By contrast, the Midwest and Northeast [[+ California) have basically carried the rest of the nation economically since the Civil War. [[I believe the Northeast and Midwest have also been the most heavily populated regions since the Civil War as well.)

Twenty years ago, when textiles manufacturers and tobacco plants were folding left and right, North Carolina looked much like Michigan does today. Probably the only difference is that the country at large paid them virtually no attention at the time... While at least Michigan's self-destruction is playing out more publicly, which will probably better position the state for a strong rebound.

Finally, the South's flaw is much the same as what some point out as the flaw of the communities around Detroit. The South hasn't created a new industry since...? Cotton? Nearly every major industry down there was poached from, or piggy-backed off of another region in the country. The notable exception would be the Houston area, which benefits geographically from being near oil deposits in the Gulf.

ETA: If you want an example of a resilient city, then look to your neighbor Pittsburgh.

Tearing down the success of others is one of those human traits that will never go away anywhere. As an example, people who use the term "War of Northern Aggression" just might be resentful of the century plus of dominance the north enjoyed.

Also, resentment of others' success seems to go hand in hand with ambition. The South's purported "hunger for dominance" has gone unsatisfied for the most part. Northern cities continue to dominate culture and finance. To the extent this "hunger" is real, it is probably fueled by resentment of real northern dominance. E.g., BOA was goaded into buying Merrill Lynch apparently because of the famous Southern inferiority complex. Its founder and chairman built America's biggest bank, but he felt he needed a piece of that Wall Street prestige to complete his rise.

Just some thoughts...apologies for their being scattered.

Many Midwestern cities flourished on manufacturing an industry that consumed large amounts of urban space and used an enormous workforce and left behind brown fields, an unskilled workforce and social benefits that are now a burden to shoulder.

Can't speak for the South as I haven't spent much time there, but on the east coast there is a big difference today between areas that were once into heavy manufacturing like much of Connecticut and Western Massachusetts and parts that did not participate in manufacturing like Vermont and Maine.

Well, that's part of the story.

First of all, the assertions about ethnic traditions are creaky and not that relevant, because of the tremendous mixing of cultures in ALL areas of the country.

And if you're going to go with that anyway, well, I'd say that the French heritage of Detroit and other parts of Michigan is a bit more "aristocratic" than any Irish/Scot tradition.

I'm still trying to figure out how the part of the country that is the poorest, least educated, most beset by social problems, and most socially and culturally backwards can somehow be redefined as "successful." How is this statement of yours: "the higher ambition levels of the South, or ... the "hunger for dominance" "close to indisputable," as you say, when any look at the actual statistics for income, education, or nearly any other measure of social and economic stability and advancement, so clearly say otherwise? Maybe in their own mind they're a successful region, but it's really only in contrast to the desperate poverty, isolation, and racial feudalism of most of the post-Civil War period. This is not bashing, it's just reliance on verifiable fact rather than a set of impressions from someone's optimistic statements.

There are pockets of prosperity in the south, to be sure, but as pointed out above, much of that is due to the transfer of northern companies, technology, and most importantly people to the region. However, it cannot go unsaid that a significant amount of that growth, most likely the overwhelming majority of it, has been driven by the desire to take advantage of the low incomes and poor living standards that still mark most of the region. In that sense, calling the south "successful" is a bit like calling Mexico or the Dominican Republic "successful" for the move of many of our important industries to those countries. What you call the "success" of the south, or even what I would term its relative improvement, is in fact part of a general decline in American employment and living standards.

Nearly every major industry down there was poached from, or piggy-backed off of another region in the countryNCR, Comerica and tons of others. The thing I have noticed is that the Southern states are notorious for giving out "incentives" to fleeing companies. What happens when those auto plants pack up and move offshore? All those billions in tax incentives flushed down the toilet. At least Michigan was left with RD and brainpower leftover from the glory days of manufacturing. The South is finding it much harder to attract and.or "poach" brainpower jobs. See the Toyota Tech Center in York Township.

This thesis seems ridiculous. Growing, economically vibrant cities attract the ambitious. Detroit was full of ambitious people in the 'teens and 'twenties. Now it isn't, because most ambitious people don't think that Detroit is the best place to fulfill those ambitions.

Also, I think Chicago is fairly midwestern, and not short of either boosterism or ambition.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto

We should all strive to live in a "successful" place like Atlanta, where we can sit parked on the freeway for 3 hours a day, breathe nothing but smog, and ration our water. That sounds like a stellar quality of life, doesn't it?

Atlanta only exists in its present form because of Delta Airlines, and the generosity of the State of Georgia in building miles upon miles of pavement on which to park, er, drive, your car. It has nothing to do with behing inherently "successful".

---

Incredible as to your knowledge of Atlanta! Actually, there was never any rationing of water just restrictions that should be in place anyway to help preserve a natural resource. The lakes are at or near full pool and have been since early spring. Yes, the commute is bad because many like me want to live outside the city and drive in due to better home prices in the burbs and a much better governing system. As far as Delta, they haven't done shit for this city in a decade. It's Coke and the other 30+ Fortune 500 companies like NCR recently, who have chosen to relocate here and make a difference. We have a Metro Atlanta Chamber of Commerce who has fostered great working relationships with suburban Chambers to work toward a much more unified approach to growth and the focus on making sure that downtown Atlanta is recognized as the "engine" that drives the success of the entire 28 county Metro Atlanta Region. In fact due to the partnership between the Atlanta Chamber and the City of Atlanta Public School System graduation rates are at an all time high and the Superintendent was recently recognized as the best in the nation by her own peer organization. Smog, sure when you have vehicles on the road like we do. But guess what, many counties have already established regional mass transit that interlocks with each other to provide afforable mass transit to most populus points in the region. Oh yea, the City of Atlanta doesn't have Martha Rose-Reeves, et al damn it Jim!:eek:

Actually, the Southern cities which have exhibited the greatest dynamism post WWII--Atlanta, Charlotte, Nashville, Raleigh-Durham, etc.--have tended to be newer, post-aristocratic Piedmont towns which typically started as railroad junctions, then due to their fortunate combination of natural resources and favorable location morphed into light manufacturing and distribution centers. The older, "aristocratic" cities--New Orleans, Mobile, Savannah, Charleston--have tended to be relatively stagnant.

The phenomenon of steady growth of southern manufacturing cities which then developed into transportation and trade centers actually has a long history, going back to Henry Grady's "New South" formulation of the late 19th century. For those cities, starting from a much smaller economic and technological base than the cities of the Great Lakes proved to be a blessing in disguise, as by the second half of the 20th century they were much less invested in old technologies and therefore open to newer ones.

Atlanta's Chamber of Commerce slogan of the 1970's--"Atlanta, the World's Next Great City" was pompous hype relentlessly disseminated in selected venues like the Wall Street Journal, but the fluff gained credibility through Ted Turner's creation of TNT and CNN headquartered in Atlanta and through creation of what eventually became America's busiest airport. Blessed with leadership which was forward looking out of necessity, the hype, ease of access, and generally lower costs for just about everything in turn attracted investments of all sorts, resulting in a city which has grown from a metro population just under 1 million in 1950 to an estimated 5,600,000 today.

It should also be noted that those Southern cities which have prospered most have been those which have also generally done the best job of dealing with the changed racial paradigm of the post civil rights movement, i.e., a sharing of political and economic power between Black and White interest groups within their regions. While metro Detroit splintered violently along racial lines with a vitriol which is a regular topic on this forum, civic leadership in cities like Atlanta, Nashville and Charlotte were relatively successful in working behind the scenes through organizations like Central Atlanta Progress to bring to the table disparate communities which nevertheless understood that uiltimately they would either succeed or fail together, and that has been an important part of the equation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mwilbert

This thesis seems ridiculous. Growing, economically vibrant cities attract the ambitious. Detroit was full of ambitious people in the 'teens and 'twenties. Now it isn't, because most ambitious people don't think that Detroit is the best place to fulfill those ambitions.

Also, I think Chicago is fairly midwestern, and not short of either boosterism or ambition.

---

Hi. Sure, economically vibrant cities attract people off all stripes. But they become vibrant because they attracted enough ambitious people and civic boosters to start with. Vibrancy isn't an exogenous factor.

Also, I did note in the post that Chicago was an exception, as it is for many, many things in the Midwest.

O-Dawg, liked that analysis.

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2007...ng_until_1.php