Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That's the unexpected point of the New York Times article at the top of the thread. It says that if a city already has a solid research university, you improve the job market/economy by enhancing the things that make people want to move there or remain there after graduation.
My read of the NYT article is that if a city -- Provo is the example -- has a research university that's spawning tech companies, they can keep companies there if they are attractive places to live for tech workers. UNM and the research labs have spawned a few startups, some of which have been bought up by out-of-state companies that often take the jobs to other states. I don't think those companies have left because Albuquerque is seen as a culturally unattractive place. They leave because there's not a workforce to support them; this is true because the economy and job opportunities for professionals have driven much of the workforce away. In contrast, Provo and Utah have a great economy with unemployment at 3%. Furthermore, there are problems obtaining venture capital and other financing for early-stage companies in New Mexico. I don't know too much about the latter, but it seems to be a real problem from what you hear from NM startups.
So, companies don't move here because there aren't workers and workers don't stay here because there are no jobs? Sounds like a catch 22. The companies should try upping their pay to better compete with pay in other cities.
Speak of the devil. Keeping in line with the quirky/uniqueness factor of ABQ. The city was recently voted as the 5th quirkiest city in America. Sitting just behind Austin and Portland and ahead of San Francisco. No matter what the metrics are to determine ABQ's "quirky" factor, this is certainly a viable list for ABQ to be on.
I don't think people had a problem with your suggestion regarding outreach to gay families. I think it's a good idea and many would be happy if the city did so. I think people are skeptical of proposals to gentrify the war zone/international district. It probably wouldn't work and even if it did, you're just displacing the people who live there now somewhere else. Better to try to reduce poverty and crime and improve social services and let poor neighborhoods improve organically. I also don't think that Central between San Mateo and Tramway is so blighted that it scares off prospective students at UNM or other visitors, such that beautification is necessary.
You hit the nail right on the head - I think most folks here who consider these problems (both in the group and IRL) are aware of Albuquerque's currently relatively gay-friendly climate and consider it one of the city's major assets in both an economic, social, and political sense. Certainly that's true for myself, and for my money Abraxas's read that that was what people were responding negatively to is off-base enough as to be offensive. My own negative response was likewise aimed at the plans for the International District, for largely the same reasons you state. Why push new higher-income residents to these areas? Doesn't a city like Albuquerque need a transitional neighborhood that draws immigrants and other very-low-income populations? Isn't the presence of these groups and the opportunities the neighborhood currently affords them at the heart of everything that currently draws outsiders to the area (restaurants, international markets, street festivals, etc.)?
Additionally, targeting the International District for higher-income migration grossly underestimates both the amount of work and investment this would take (have you driven around the district enough to get a sense of the number of extremely marginal apartments, dilapidated trailer parks, absolutely empty commercial strips, etc. it contains?) and the central city's capacity for additional investment and development both public and private. Anyone who has spent time in the neighborhoods on the fringes of the Country Club-UNM strip is aware of the opportunities there: 100+year old homes in relatively good repair (Crafstman? Victorian? vernacular adobe? Take your pick...), dozens of under-utilized industrial, warehouse, and commercial properties with both architectural charm and historical value, and above all lots and lots of centrally-located vacant spaces just waiting for new development. These areas are affordable, economically and culturally diverse, compact, walkable, and at least potentially bike-friendly...in short, everything the "creative class" is ostensibly looking for. The International District is an important and vital part of Albuquerque in its current state, but reforming it into something that would appeal to monied migrants would be a huge effort...why target it now when there are so many easier pickings?
Strange coincidence having that article come out today, along with the news of Albuquerque's Top 5 Quirkiness ranking by Travel and Leisure (thanks SantaFe400)!
Regarding gentrification: My suggestion was to try to reduce crime in a specific high-profile area close to UNM, which does not necessarily require displacing a single poor person. Low income neighborhoods are not inherently dangerous. But I can see how some people would reject this idea because, the more successful it is, the greater the risk of displacement because that area is so convenient to UNM.
So how about I officially retract my suggestion #2 (improve Central Ave. east. of San Mateo Blvd.) which generated no affirmative responses (other than acknowledging the level of blight), but the quirkiness aspect seems to have legs, and is the more important part of the original posting as reflected in the title.
Strange coincidence having that article come out today, along with the news of Albuquerque's Top 5 Quirkiness ranking by Travel and Leisure (thanks SantaFe400)!
Regarding gentrification: My suggestion was to try to reduce crime in a specific high-profile area close to UNM, which does not necessarily require displacing a single poor person. Low income neighborhoods are not inherently dangerous. But I can see how some people would reject this idea because, the more successful it is, the greater the risk of displacement because that area is so convenient to UNM.
So how about I officially retract my suggestion #2 (improve Central Ave. east. of San Mateo Blvd.) which generated no affirmative responses (other than acknowledging the level of blight), but the quirkiness aspect seems to have legs, and is the more important part of the original posting as reflected in the title.
I'm in favor of improving all of the streets in the city, including Central Avenue along its entire stretch, including east of San Mateo. If someone wanted to start with that section, that'd be fine with me.
There is some ongoing redevelopment on Central between San Mateo and Juan Tabo.
Perhaps further development ideas should acknowledge and build upon what's already here; the state fairgrounds/expo New Mexico, proximity of the VA center and Kirtland AFB/Sandia, and of course a diverse international community.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
