Over at TNR, Joel Kotkin makes a pretty compelling case that most of what we think we know about the so-called urban renaissance of recent years is wrong.

In some respects, of course, the last ten or so years have been a good time for American cities. Most urban areas, particularly New York, became safer and cleaner than they were in the '80s. And, certainly, we are no longer living in the dark days of the '70s--an era symbolized by the 1981 cult classic Escape from New York. These trends have made urban life more attractive to some and thereby stimulated residential construction as well as slowed--and in some cases reversed--the flight from cities of jobs.

But these developments notwithstanding, the renaissance of American cities has been greatly overstated--and this unwarranted optimism is doing a disservice to cities themselves. Urban politics has become self-satisfied and triumphalist, content to see cities promote the appearance of thriving while failing to serve the very people--families, immigrants, often minorities--who most need cities to be decent, livable places. The myths that have grown up surrounding the urban renaissance are now often treated as fact. As an urban historian who lives in a major city, I believe that recognizing these myths for what they are is a critical first step towards the redemption of urban America.

What myths? Kotkin identifies three:

• Cities are again gaining people. Urban boosters say yes, but the numbers tell a different story. In fact, relative to suburban, exurban and rural areas, most major American cities are still losing population at a fairly alarming rate.
• Cities are where the successful people are. Not really. According to Kotkin, "Sixteen of the country's top twenty counties in terms of percentage of college educated people are now suburban; only three, Manhattan (New York County), San Francisco, and Washington, D.C., are cities."
• Cool cities attract the best jobs; uncool cities don't. Again, no. "The areas that have experienced growth in new-economy jobs--such as business and financial services--have not been the pillars of cool," writes Kotkin. "In fact, since 2000 these jobs have been leaving the likes of Boston and San Francisco, while accumulating in church-going, conservative areas like Boise, Phoenix, Reno, Salt Lake City, and southwest Florida."

So, assuming one thinks that all this is a problem (a debatable point for some, I would guess), what to do? Honestly, I dunno. Kotkin talks about the need to begin with an urban reality check, which would at least force city officials to recognize the true nature and scope of their problems -- "lost jobs, dysfunctional schools, and crumbling infrastructure." But I'm afraid his Big Idea -- an "urban New Deal" that would shift city resources away from high-profile "bread and circuses" projects aimed at hipsters and the well-off, and toward basic services for the middle class -- sounds a bit fanciful in the current political climate, particularly given the fact that the middle class seems pretty enamored of the bread and circuses in question (stadiums, shopping districts, and the like).

Anyway, I hope Kotkin's right and I'm wrong. And to give his argument the full and fair hearing it deserves, read the rest here.