CMV: The idea of a "vibrant" or "diverse" city is a myth perpetuated by leftist politicians and elite city-dwellers

My definition of "diverse" or "vibrant" for the purpose of this post is "strikingly multicolored" or "pulsating with energy and life", respectively. I maintain that in the vast majority of cases, a city that is truly vibrant or diverse is not actually desirable to live in. Furthermore, social and cultural diversity, which are the most common denotations of these adjectives in the context of cities, are often at odds with the kinds of qualities people truly look for in a place to live. If you are attachment to the idea of the vibrant city, I hope to change your view.<br><br>The ideal of vibrant diversity was pioneered and promoted by the likes of Jane Jacobs, who sought to preserve ethnic enclaves in New York City and and other cities. The idea was to preserve all of these tiny cultures, and to maintain the city as a place where immigrants could come and introduce their ideas and traditions to the American melting pot while still maintaining their own heritage. It was up to the policymakers to create and preserve spaces for all of these different communities to thrive, providing them with resources and opportunities to become part of the broader urban economy.<br><br>In reality, the pursuit of this ideal has been extremely detrimental to cities, and has led to widespread poverty, crime, and decay of the public space, as well as the exploitation (both economic and cultural) of minority groups by outside business interests and wealthy city dwellers. Cities which are truly diverse and vibrant are not places which anyone wants to live.<br><br>Consider a city like Manhattan. For the business and cultural elite, Manhattan is the ultimate vibrant and diverse city. It is a place where a person of any nationality or creed can come to share their ideas and traditions with people from all walks of life. It is a city of great opportunity, and is home to many of the world's most famous museums, theaters, and restaurants. However, the cost of living in Manhattan is exorbitant - a small studio apartment in a high-rise tower in Manhattan is vastly more expensive than a house in the suburbs or a neighboring town. Furthermore, the city is incredibly crowded and noisy. The streets and subways are crowded with tourists during the day, and with revelers at night. Light and noise pollution from the towering skyscrapers and the bright billboards of Times Square are constant. To make matters worse, the city is not particularly safe. While crime has decreased significantly since the 1980s and 90s, crimes like pickpocketing, purse-snatching, and mugging are still common, particularly in areas frequented by tourists. Finally, the city is extremely difficult to get around by car, and traffic laws are strictly enforced, and parking is incredibly expensive. However, these facts do not prevent Manhattan from being considered a paragon of the urban ideal.<br><br>Of course, the wealthy residents of Manhattan are relatively insulated from these issues - they have the money to afford the high cost of living (or else they would not live there in the first place), there is usually a doorman or some other kind of security at these expensive buildings, they are unlikely to be out on the streets late at night or in dangerous areas, cabs and ride-hailing services are an affordable option for them, and they generally do not have difficulty finding a parking spot. Wealthy residents of Manhattan are able to take advantage of all of the amenities and benefits of the city, while avoiding most of the drawbacks.<br><br>Farther down the island, the picture is very different. The South Bronx is, by all accounts, a terrible place to live. The area is extremely poor, with over 50% of the population living below the poverty line. The area is very dangerous, with violent and property crimes occurring very frequently. Homelessness is rampant, and many residents live in squalor. The area is also very crowded, with over 10 times the population density as the national average. The area is also incredibly polluted, with high levels of lead, indirect tobacco smoke, and other pollutants. For the residents of the South Bronx, life is a constant struggle - crime and poverty are omnipresent, and there is no escape from the noise, pollution, and squalor.<br><br>The South Bronx may not be a paradigm of urban excellence, but it is certainly a diverse and vibrant place to live. The area is home to people from many different racial and ethnic backgrounds, including white, Hispanic, black, Chinese, Korean, and others. Furthermore, the area is, in some senses, "pulsating with energy and life" - crime and police activity is a constant presence, as are the sounds of traffic, music, and yelling. The area has a great deal of "vitality", and has a lot of "character" as well. However, these do not make it a good place to live. I do not think that anyone who truly had a choice would choose to live in the South Bronx, much less extol its virtues to others.<br><br>Hopefully, it is apparent at this point that truly diverse and vibrant cities, which are cities characterized by a diverse citizenry and a vibrant and dynamic cultural landscape, are not places where anyone would want to live. True, New York and other major cities have a lot to offer, but it is necessary to ignore the drawbacks of living in a city to see these benefits. There is, however, a disconnect between what policymakers and the residents of cities see. Policymakers want to preserve ethnic enclaves and immigrant communities as part of their ideal of vibrant cultural diversity. Residents see a city with a lot to offer and a high quality of life, but also a place with a lot of drawbacks, such as crowding and crime. That being the case, then, why do policymakers and city-dwellers continue to extol the virtues of diverse and vibrant cities?<br><br>For many residents of cities, urban life is not just a convenient way to live which offers a high quality of life. This is because cities, which are centers of business, culture, and government, are often at the forefront of social change. For instance, cities have historically been centers of progressive activism, such as the labor and civil rights movements. Urbanites see cities as a place where progressive social change happens, and therefore see themselves as being at the vanguard of progress. Furthermore, cities have historically been places of refuge for outcasts and misfits of all kinds. Many of these people see their city as a place where they can freely express themselves and be accepted, and see other cities as having the same function. For instance, many LGBTQ+ people see cities, and particularly San Francisco and New York City, as places where they can freely express themselves and live their lives openly. Therefore, cities tend to attract socially progressive people, and are often at the forefront of progressive social change. <br><br>Many city residents see the vibrancy and diversity of their city as a manifestation of this progress. For instance, residents of a city with a relatively high percentage of foreign-born residents may see themselves as a beacon of tolerance and multiculturalism, and may say that their city is particularly diverse or vibrant as a result. Residents of a city with a thriving art and music scene may see themselves as being part of a community that is using art and culture to advance progressive causes, such as racial or social justice. In both cases, the city resident will say that the city is vibrant or diverse because they see themselves as being part of a progressive cause.<br><br>However, this vision of the city is a myth - cities are not inherently progressive places, and the pursuit of urban diversity and vibrancy is destructive of the very progressive ideals that urbanites claim to uphold. Consider the case of New York City once again. While many city residents are outasts and misfits, who see themselves as being part of a progressive tradition, this is only true for a small minority of residents. In reality, New York City is a place of immense wealth and greed, and is a global center of finance and trade. Furthermore, while New York City has historically been a place where immigrants can come to share their traditions and ideas, it is not, and has never been, a place of social equality.<br><br>Many people see Ellis Island, the point of entry for millions of immigrants in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, as a symbol of New York City's role in receiving immigrants from around the world. However, Ellis Island has a very ignoble history - it was an entry-point only for white immigrants, particularly those from Ireland, Germany, and Italy. Black, hispanic, and Asian immigrants were largely barred from entering the country, and were excluded from the social and cultural mainstream. Today, of course, conditions for people of color in New York City are far better, but social equality is still a long way off. Food insecurity, housing insecurity, education inequality, crime, police brutality, and other issues disproportionately affect people of color in New York City, and in cities across the United States and the world.<br><br>Furthermore, the wealthy urban elite have historically used the idea of vibrant cultural diversity as a tool to exploit and oppress minority communities. Wealthy property developers, looking to profit off of rising property values, will often use the idea of diversity as a way to attract their demographic of choice - young, wealthy professionals. This process, known as gentrification, leads to rapid increases in the cost of living, and displacement of existing residents. Furthermore, this process often leads to the erasure of the traditional culture of the area, as businesses catering to the new residents open, serving wine, coffee, and other hallmarks of upscale urban living. This process has played out and continues to play out in cities across the world, including New York City, where the Harlem neighborhood has seen a dramatic influx of wealthy white residents, leading to the displacement of the area's historic black population.<br><br>Ultimately, then, the idea of the vibrant city is a