By Richey Piiparinen
I was at a talk the other day in Oberlin discussing the renewed interest in Rust Belt culture, particularly as it relates to economic recovery. There was a student from Scranton, PA, who talked about his passion for the Rust Belt, and his desire to make a difference upon returning home. He asked—and I am paraphrasing—what does local government need to do to enable the next generation to help with post-industrial revitalization? I responded: by not disabling the next generation’s ideas to aid in post-industrial revitalization. I said this out of concern that this is going on in Cleveland.
Now, it’s good that young people are repositioning themselves toward the city, as Cleveland has been dealing with the consequences of disinvestment for a long time. But while young Clevelanders as consumers of city restaurants, city real estate, and urban play areas are a plus, this in itself won’t tip Cleveland or the Rust Belt into long-lasting economic growth. Fresh thinking will. But this supposes there is a seat at the table for fresh thoughts.
Cleveland is still top heavy when it comes to getting things done. There is an Establishment, or a lineage of industrial legacy that forms a framework—a kind of back channeling of “yes, you go” or “no, uh-uh, sit”—that either makes kings or dresses down a soul’s aspiration. Such parochial contexts are a death knell for being able to look and think about challenges freshly and honestly. And this is evidenced in how Cleveland keeps turning to dying solutions (e.g., casinos, hand-outs to big business, convention centers, creative class amenities) to fix pulsating problems.
It is also evidenced in who is leading, or more exactly: what young voice isn’t. Seriously, think about it: who are the up-and-comers emerging from the swamp of the same old, same old to ensure that the city can stop “revitalizing” year after year after year. It is hard to find a good answer, at least in positions of power. If ye enter ye get co-opted it seems. And that’s because Cleveland teases its young with potentiality if only to get them tied down to fear of exclusion for not towing the line. On the one hand, this isn’t surprising: power has a way of ensuring itself. On the other and, this is amazing, as this oligopoly-derived thinking from the Rockefeller days happened because our industrial might meant national sway, but more importantly: it meant jobs and food and education for the children; that is, there was actually a good reason back in the day to get in line.
But what about now? What’s the benefit for young leading voices to passively wait in line these days? It’s certainly not the jobs, let alone the prospect of a life-long, livable-wage career. It’s not the status quo of success. More likely, it’s just how things have been done around here. Inertia is a bitch. And so the path to being a leader is usually the one of least resistance, which means following direction from a legacy framework that finds little energy or interest in affecting real change. This is obviously a problem, especially since the city is experiencing a bit of comeback in relation to having a new generation live (in) and care (for) Cleveland.
This is not to say there aren’t young Clevelanders who are making a difference and affecting real change, but this often occurs in the post-industrial wreckage, which is to say places that folks with influence don’t care for anymore. Of course this is one benefit of the old guard constantly failing: it creates an ever growing pile of discard to do-it-yourself in if you care to live with purpose.
Yet this is not a sustainable way forward: for the youth to simply integrate their energy solely into the wreckage. The next generation needs to be in with the decision makers now, allowing their energy and fresh-eyed capacity to shake things up once the hard-wired ways begin their inert gravitation to “X” because they always did “X.” The alternative is to make the future of the city sit until either co-optation or age settle in so as to have yet another voice vouch for “X” when the declarative should be why.
Richey Piiparinen is a Clevelander, a writer, and a city strategist. His work has appeared in numerous publications, including the Atlantic Cities, New Geography, Huffington Post, and Next American City. Richey is co-editor of the book Rust Belt Chic: A Cleveland Anthology. His musings and work can be found at richeypiiparinen.wordpress.com and rustbeltchic.com.
2 Responses to “The Young Cometh, the Future Be Taken Away?”
Terry Schwarz
It seems like every generation has some variation on this complaint. Young people eager to make their voices heard, if only their elders would get out of the way. But in Cleveland, I’ve always found a great receptiveness to new ideas, regardless of who is voicing the idea. There are many young people in leadership positions who are having an impact in Greater Cleveland, and not just in the “post-industrial wreckage,” whatever that is. For example, Jenita McGowan holds a cabinet-level position as chief of sustainability for the City of Cleveland. Fred Collier has recently been appointed as the assistant planning director for the Cleveland Planning Commission. Jacob Van Sickle and his colleagues at Bike Cleveland are having a hugely positive impact on the region’s transportation infrastructure. Mike Christoff is introducing influential new design ideas through Pecha Kucha and the Cleveland Design Competition. Ari Maron is responsible for the most innovative and impactful development projects in the city. Jeff Finley’s annual Weapons of Mass Creation event is an exciting platform for sharing ideas among the young and less-young. Hallie Bram and Eric Kogelschatz at Shark & Minnow, the fresh faces over at the Civic Commons, Cleveland’s Strong Cities/Strong Communities fellows…the list goes on and on. Good ideas, combined with persistence and optimism, are ageless.
Richey Piiparinen
Thanks for the read and the comment Terry. As you point out, there are exceptions, especially in niche communities such as urban planning and design circles. And yes: Ari Maron was in the forefront of my mind while writing this as one of the young leaders penetrating old ways. That said, top-down decision making flowing from entrenched power structures can and does make it hard for young folks without connections to crack what is decidedly not a glass ceiling.