New Observations Confirm Skepticism of Creative Class Urbanism

State and Local Government |
By Scott Tanner | Read Time 3 minutes minutes

In a recent Vox column, Rachel Cohen Booth argues that many American cities pursued a “creative‑class” strategy in the 2000s and 2010s: they built dense housing aimed at young, child‑free professionals—studios, one‑ and two‑bedroom apartments—betting millennials would form the stable middle of urban life. According to Booth, the bet is unraveling as those millennials age into their 30s and 40s and begin having children. Because the housing stock never adapted—family‑sized apartments, townhouses, or starter homes remained rare—many of these families are leaving cities, and large urban counties have seen notable declines in their population of children under five.

Long-time readers of this site will not be surprised. I argued in 2018 that Kansas City’s “creative‑class” investments—downtown luxury apartments, entertainment districts, and infrastructure built for young urbanites—did not amount to a sustainable strategy for long‑term growth and retention. I observed that many millennials preferred the suburbs: affordable housing, space, good schools, and stable services.

Booth’s column helps explain why. The urban‑core housing boom may have been good at attracting people in their 20s and early 30s. But when that cohort started families, cities lacked housing and civic infrastructure suitable for children and long‑term residence. As a result, the creative‑class gamble has begun to backfire. Cities may keep a veneer of vibrancy and high rents, but underneath many are losing the people who once anchored stable communities—workers, taxpayers, parents, consumers.

That matters for Missouri cities such as Kansas City (and for other mid-size urban areas nationwide). A city’s strength does not come only from bars, nightlife, or trendy apartments. It comes from stable families, long‑term homeownership or stable renting, good schools, reliable infrastructure, and civic engagement grounded in predictable community roots. The creative‑class theory always rested on uncertain assumptions about life‑cycle stability.

As I pointed out in 2018, and as current national trends affirm, there is no magic bullet to make downtown living the default for most families. A better path remains broad and neutral: keep taxes reasonable, maintain infrastructure, support quality schools, and enable stable, moderately priced housing—suburban or urban—that families actually want.

Creative‑class strategies may look shiny on paper and flashy in media. But when they fail to adapt to one of life’s key transitions—from young adult to parent—their long‑term contribution to stable growth may have been nothing more than a short‑lived boom.

About the Author

Scott Tanner joined the Show-Me Institute in July of 2013. He earned a B.A. in political science from the College of Wooster. Scott previously worked for the Mitt Romney campaign in Iowa during both the caucuses and the general election of the 2012 cycle. In between, he worked at the Iowa State House for a legislative session. Scott is primarily interested in fiscal and economic policy and considers the Show-Me Institutes mission one of crucial importance. Scott lives in the Central West End neighborhood of Saint Louis City.

Similar Stories

Support Us

Headline to go here about the good with supporting us.

Donate
Man on Horse Charging