No Place Like Home? New Localism in America
>> Wednesday, October 14, 2009
An interesting piece from Joel Kotkin at New Geography who suggests that America is seeing the emergence of a ‘new localism’.
Those in the UK who’ve kept up with the debate on communities over the past few years will be familiar with new localism –New Labour have viewed it as a means to avert community breakdown and what they view as excessive individualism. Kotkin also talks of “rootlessness and anomie” and associates spatial mobility with social disintegration and of America becoming "a society coming apart at the seams."
The article highlights a number of trends that emerged before the recession and have consolidated since. The most important are: -
· the collapse in "spatial mobility". In the 1970s 20% of people moved annually; by 2006, it was 14 percent, the lowest rate since the 1940s;
· the "boomerang kids" trend as children’s financial reliance on their parents continues well into their 30s and 40s as job options and the ability to buy houses diminishes; and
· the rise in working electronically at home full time which by 2015 is forecast to be more than those using mass transit.
Kotkin’s basic premise is that the longer people stay in their homes and communities, the more they identify with those places, and the greater their commitment to helping local businesses and institutions thrive. Home-based workers will eat in local restaurants, attend fairs and festivals, take their kids to soccer practices, ballet lessons, or religious youth-group meetings. While there are some important differences, some of Kotkin’s arguments appear to echo those of the new economics foundation and the Transition Towns movement in the UK.
While we might welcome the freedom to choose to work at home, to what extent can localism more broadly be viewed as a positive development? Were cities not the means to escape the constricted environment of the village? Can we really be that positive about living more locally, especially if it is the result of less opportunities to sell houses and find new employment?
· the collapse in "spatial mobility". In the 1970s 20% of people moved annually; by 2006, it was 14 percent, the lowest rate since the 1940s;
· the "boomerang kids" trend as children’s financial reliance on their parents continues well into their 30s and 40s as job options and the ability to buy houses diminishes; and
· the rise in working electronically at home full time which by 2015 is forecast to be more than those using mass transit.
Kotkin’s basic premise is that the longer people stay in their homes and communities, the more they identify with those places, and the greater their commitment to helping local businesses and institutions thrive. Home-based workers will eat in local restaurants, attend fairs and festivals, take their kids to soccer practices, ballet lessons, or religious youth-group meetings. While there are some important differences, some of Kotkin’s arguments appear to echo those of the new economics foundation and the Transition Towns movement in the UK.
While we might welcome the freedom to choose to work at home, to what extent can localism more broadly be viewed as a positive development? Were cities not the means to escape the constricted environment of the village? Can we really be that positive about living more locally, especially if it is the result of less opportunities to sell houses and find new employment?
