The Myth of 'Superstar Cities'

The Wall Street Journal ^ | February 13, 2007 | JOEL KOTKIN

[MinorityRepublican]

"If New York City is a business, it isn't Wal-Mart -- it isn't trying to be the lowest-priced product in the market. It's a high-end product, maybe even a luxury product. New York offers tremendous value, but only for those companies able to capitalize on it."

-- Mayor Michael Bloomberg January 2003

These seem the best of times for America's elite cities. Wall Street's 2006 megabonuses created thousands of instant millionaires, and, with their venture-fund soulmates in places like San Francisco, Boston and Greenwich, the best people are prowling for Ferraris, planes, multimillion-dollar condos, the newest $200 lunch place and the latest in high fashion. In some markets, office prices and rents are breaking all-time records.

The bluest of the blue cities can also celebrate their rise to the top of the congressional pole. Speaker Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco, Finance Chairman Barney Frank of suburban Boston and Ways and Means Chairman Charles Rangel of Manhattan all represent something of an economic coup for the "good rich" such as dot-com billionaires, subsidized downtown real-estate developers and "enlightened" investment bankers. The new notables most likely won't find fault with their constituents' windfalls as they have with those of the oil companies, the pharmaceutical firms or Wal-Mart.

Yet these triumphs obscure the longer-term developments that continue to reshape metropolitan America. Economic and demographic trends suggest that the future of American urbanism lies not in the elite cities but in younger, more affordable and less self-regarding places.

Over past 15 years, it has been opportunistic newcomers -- Houston, Charlotte, Las Vegas, Phoenix, Dallas, Riverside -- that have created most new jobs and gained most net domestic migration. In contrast there has been virtually negligible long-term net growth in jobs or positive domestic migration to places like New York, Los Angeles, Boston or San Francisco.

[43north]

Did you ever notice that the ultra-rich of these cities mostly produce funny money? They use money to make money. They make nothing that adds inherent value to life. That must be why these cities are all bastions of dhimmiecratic lieberalizm.

[bpjam]

Its that mostly they are basing their income on the backs of government regulation, government subsidies or government contracts - many or most of those which don't actually create value. And there is so much money being handed out in these big cities that you see the 'rich-poor' divide the libs keep whining about. Its not in the red states, its in these mega-blue cities where the gap is increasingly wider.

Even bond traders add value but its much harder to see how politicians do.

[steve8714]

Just like George Soros?