In “Partnership and the Pursuit of the Private City”,
Squires argues that, contrary to some analysts’ interpretations of the United
States’ current service-heavy and manufacturing-sparse job market as a mark of
societal progress, “[s]ervice and manufacturing are clearly linked; one cannot
supplant the other” (217). I thought little of this claim until I had finished
reading Judd’s “Promoting Tourism in US Cities”. That article’s explanation of
the tourist infrastructure in American cities indicates that urban leaders recognize
the gap left by the mass departure of manufacturing jobs. Instead of attempting
to restore these jobs to their cities, however, these leaders have resorted to
massive investment in tourism as a means of replacing them.
In fact, they seem less
concerned with creating jobs for their citizens than with accruing tourist
income. They see the construction of attractions and facilities as more
profitable than native employment itself, even if that construction is
astronomically expensive. This practice is prone to backfiring, as Judd proves:
the 100 million dollar cost and sixth month lifespan of Flint, Michigan’s
AutoWorld museum stands out as a most glaring example of wasted tax money, as
does the fact that sports stadiums like New Orleans’s Superdome tend to operate
at a loss of millions of dollars each year. Why do city leaders insist on
investing in these expensive components of tourist infrastructure when they are
typically not very profitable?
I think you're right in saying that these expenditures are "typically" not very profitable. However, in the odd chance that they are, they prove to be extremely valuable for the city (in regards to residents and tourism.) I'm from Dallas, and the launch of our AAC, the new Cowboys stadium, and the renovations being made at the ballpark in Arlington seem to help revenue the metroplex. When renovations were made on the ballpark in 2010 the taxpayers were actually able to pay off the debt ten years earlier than planned. Revenue in the ballpark itself has continued to climb with the success of the team.
ReplyDeleteFrom my experience I really have nothing bad to say about this brand of tourist infrastructure. I totally agree with what you have to say about the void left by absent manufactures though. Perhaps creating attractions for tourism is easier than creating jobs? For the most part I liked that Judd has to say, and I appreciate that he ended his argument on a positive note. Although privatism reinforces social imbalances, progress has been made across the country. Balance is slowly being made, even though privatism is what we continue to build our cities on.
I would have to agree with both of you. Logan, I found myself being upset for the same reason while reading Judd's "Promoting Tourism in US Cities." The tourist infrastructure in which leaders opt out of job restoration in favor of a large increase in tourism is, at times, quite absurd. Then in other instances, as Meredith pointed out, cities are changed for the better by focusing on tourism and things like convention centers and stadiums. It is quite the frustrating paradox. Why can't American cities have the best of both worlds? Ideally native employment would increase with the expansion of a city (ex. all of the people that are needed to work at whatever city center has been built). Logically it *seems* like there would be some increase in employment for the cities' residents. Obviously it has not been working in that idealized manner thus far, though, and it is so bothersome that no one seems to know how to assuage that problem.
ReplyDelete