Is a healthy dose of provincialism good for a city?

[Chicago103]

There is all this talk of cities being worldly in a global economy and to a large extent I agree. It is good to have people from all over the country and the world coming to your city and adding to it's diversity. I do however think there is a danger in a city being too transplant oriented, when there is nothing to ground it, few natives to teach the transplants the traditions and history of the city. Not everything about the vibe and culture of a city can be read or learned by talking to other transplants, people often need guides, those that were born in a city and whose family has lived in a city for several generations to learn what it is truly all about.

What am I rambling about? It is the belief that I have that the most successful global cities find a balance between attracting transplants from all over the world and being grounded in native born populations and neighborhoods. New York City and Chicago for instance are always ranked near the top of global cities and attract transplants from all over the country and world, at the same time though these cities are filled with neighborhoods and populations of people that were born in the city and whose families have lived here for generations and also tend to be middle class or above and in some cases as well educated as the transplants. Sure every city, even the transplant oriented ones above have native born impoverished populations but it is rare and difficult for them to interact and relate to the educated transplants. NYC and Chicago are well known for having well established ethnic neighborhoods that have been around for generations, filled with old people that have lived in the city their entire lives and many of their descendants have moved up the economic latter, become educated and thus can relate with the more recent educated newcomers to the city.

I say this as someone who is a Chicago native with family roots in the city going back over 100 years and as much as I love transplants coming to our great city I am glad there is plenty of tradition to ground me here and my hope is that many of these newcomers will set up roots here for good. This is part of the reason I wouldn't like living in cities like Atlanta, Houston, Phoenix, even Washington D.C. I can't imagine being in a city where nearly everyone (especially educated people) are from somewhere else and have no roots in the city. It is no wonder some people just see cities as places to stay a few years and move on, there is no tradition to ground them there, it is just a revolving door.

Some people will say I am nuts, that these cities could evolve over time into more traditional global and grounded cities, that Chicago of 1870 was a place filled with transplants and with attitudes like mine the city couldn't have grown. True, I do hope these cities become more grounded over time and it could happen and there are examples, for instance Los Angeles of 1950 I would classify as a transplant city but today it is mature enough and large enough to have the critical mass that I would also consider it a grounded one with established populations and traditions. However the historical examples are from pre-globalization when populations were less mobile, i.e. people did make the big move back then but it was likely the only big move of their lives, in a society that is now very mobile we need grounded places to retain people. That is what I mean by cities needing a healthy dose of provincialism in order to be a truly great city.

[Centropolis]

I think cities are best when they strike a balance between fresh blood and some provincialism - see I think you want to pull people into the orbit of their new city, something more than just "being there." The most successful mature cities inevitably do, I think. I've experienced both probably too much provincialism as well as not enough in different midwestern cities. In that vein, I would ask why I would want to live some place that doesn't have any pride in itself? At the same time a city can't be so provincial that new blood feels uncomfortable...you want people inside the "circle," and you want them to want to be there. Some other more popular/boom cities I often find don't have enough provincialism not so much as a self esteem issue but that everyone is scheming some next place they are going to live, and it's sometimes a little flaky. Coordinating things sometimes is like herding cats.

[599GTO]

Provincialism is only cute if your name is NYC, London or Paris. Chicago's insular nature is a reason why DC blew past it this last decade.

[Centropolis]

It would be less banal if you would elaborate instead of throwing simple-bombs and walking away.

[J. Will]

Originally Posted by Chicago103

There is all this talk of cities being worldly in a global economy and to a large extent I agree. It is good to have people from all over the country and the world coming to your city and adding to it's diversity. I do however think there is a danger in a city being too transplant oriented, when there is nothing to ground it, few natives to teach the transplants the traditions and history of the city. Not everything about the vibe and culture of a city can be read or learned by talking to other transplants, people often need guides, those that were born in a city and whose family has lived in a city for several generations to learn what it is truly all about.

Maybe a city COULD have too many immigrants in theory, but I doubt any city does. I think 50-50 native born/immigrants is a good mix. If a city was 80% immigrants for example, that might be too much, but I doubt any major city is like that.

This is part of the reason I wouldn't like living in cities like Atlanta, Houston, Phoenix, even Washington D.C. I can't imagine being in a city where nearly everyone (especially educated people) are from somewhere else

Are there any actual numbers supporting this statement (that nearly everybody in Atlanta, Houston, Phoenix, or DC are from "somewhere else")? I doubt it to be true. If I could see actual numbers though, I'd like to be proven wrong.

[Buckeye Native 001]

Depends on the city.

[montréaliste]

That is an interesting question. I think that you can be smack in the middle of a big city, rich, and surrounded by luxury and and sophistication and still be a hick. There are cosmopolitan attitudes among all classes, and then provincialism, and inward looking attitudes across the board also.

You can be staunchly supportive of a local sports team and yet be divorced from the inner city you identify with, reverting to the suburbs as you see fit.

Tackiness, lack of taste are not a product of a small town mentality. There are plenty of examples of kitsch posing as high art in global cities, and likewise some smaller cities can show an openness to culture that is stunning. I think Burlington Vermont is the near perfect example of a city with a balanced view of culture, money, amenities for its citizens that comes from an acquired sophistication, an attention to details that make life worth living. A city should be a pleasant place made for people, not a place to use and abuse folks.

[Kingofthehill]

I don't feel like digging for the info, but the 2010 Census put DC at 37% native born.

[Omaharocks]

Originally Posted by Kingofthehill

I don't feel like digging for the info, but the 2010 Census put DC at 37% native born.

You mean born in DC? I still wouldn't be sure whether that implies a high number of locals or not, but it would be interesting to compare to other large cities.

My experience is anecdotal, but my impression with the DC metro when I lived there was that it was a pretty darn transient major city.

At any rate, I agree with the sentiment that you want a balance.

[TarHeelJ]

I don't believe that the majority of people see cities like Atlanta or Washington D.C. as a "revolving door" simply because they don't have roots there. I know that with Atlanta, most people end up loving the city and want to stay...so they create roots - hence the phenomenal population growth of the past 25 years. It has always amazed me how professional athletes continue to reside in Atlanta after retiring or being traded because they love living there. I'm sure some of the other cities mentioned are similar.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by Omaharocks

You mean born in DC? I still wouldn't be sure whether that implies a high number of locals or not, but it would be interesting to compare to other large cities.

My experience is anecdotal, but my impression with the DC metro when I lived there was that it was a pretty darn transient major city.

At any rate, I agree with the sentiment that you want a balance.

^ When I lived there most people were transients. Very few locals. Also, the international flavor of DC was always very appealing to me. DC definitely lacks much, or even any, provincialism.

People usually were there for a while and ultimately planned to move elsewhere. I met a lot of ex-New Yorkers there who ultimately planned to move back home after their time there was over.

I once met a French guy in DC who had traveled the US, and when I asked him what his favorite American city was he enthusiastically replied "Chicago!" before I could finish the question. That one kinda tickled me...

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by 599GTO

Provincialism is only cute if your name is NYC, London or Paris.

Speak for yourself, bud.

NYC's "brand" of provincialism annoyed the hell out of me when I lived there, and still annoys me.

In fact, provincialism everywhere pretty much annoys me.

The only provincialism that I like is my own

[Segun]

Provincialism also brings such things as a strong local identity and pride, which translates very well into culture and music, and in turn, attracts other people to the city. People tend to gravitate towards cities that have a solid foundation and want to leave their mark within its storied history. For instance, why do you think Obama came to Chicago? Its political history makes it a magnet for people who want to community organize and deal with cut-throat politics, that in many ways is worse than Capitol Hill. The same reason transplants come to Brooklyn and start wearing Brooklyn hats like they grew up in Bed-Stuy.

[fflint]

They key is to attract newcomers who buy into your city's particular provincial culture, and to make sure the local culture changes slowly over time to engender the most compelling values of your city's newcomers.

[TarHeelJ]

Originally Posted by fflint

They key is to attract newcomers who buy into your city's particular provincial culture, and to make sure the local culture changes slowly over time to engender the most compelling values of your city's newcomers.

Yes!

[bnk]

Sorry I have not read one word of this thread becides the title.

As a general question though.. can intense regional or provincialism evolve into intense nationalism, aka super pride in a particular region or race? [ that could devolve into a civil type war or global for that matter]

Not trying to go right down to the road to 1939 or 1860 but ....


If one is interested feel free to expound upon my observsion. Feel free...

[tyler1]

Originally Posted by 599GTO

Provincialism is only cute if your name is NYC, London or Paris. Chicago's insular nature is a reason why DC blew past it this last decade.

How is there any difference? And it's ridiculous to say Chicago's "insular" nature is holding it back as it is increasingly ranked as one of the world's top financial center.

[llamaorama]

Chicago and the other big cities are mean enough, because they are big places

Provincialism literally refers to a province, or outlying country though, right?

Sometimes you can have too much of a good thing. How does provincialism, and homogeneity and conformity affect individuals? I don't really do well with people who are passive aggressive and judgmental. I'll take obnoxious people with short memories any day. Being on the receiving end of rude behavior is never as bad as being on some little marm's shit list because you were rude to them. Maybe I'm just a product of the South, and also I have a customer service type job. In some ways maybe I am a little too passive aggressive myself, but its because I can blow things off.

[novawolverine]

DC doesn't need to be as provincial because it already has plenty of history and culture as it is. Take away the provincial attitudes in some places, that often feels like insecurity manifesting itself, and they seem pretty ordinary. I agree with whoever said that it depends on the city. IMO, the better the city, the more tolerable the provincialism is. I don't think it's good to be insular, though.

Originally Posted by Kingofthehill

I don't feel like digging for the info, but the 2010 Census put DC at 37% native born.

A lot of people only think about the most yuppified and gentrified areas of the city when they think about how many natives there area. They usually aren't thinking about the eastern half of the city, which is nothing new.

More provincialism in DC would probably help make suburbanites more cognizant and prideful, but I don't think people in the city proper need to be more provincial.

[dave8721]

Only 28% of Miami residents were even born in the state of Florida (only 42% were even born in the US). I bet a good chunk of that number is below the age of 18. I doubt more than 10% of Miami residents over the age of 30 are native born Miamian's. Miami's suburban residents are far more likely to be long time locals but even then the % is pretty low.