Interesting talk this lunchtime at the RSA from Don Carter about his new book Remaking Post-Industrial Cities, which looks at 10 cities in the US and Europe and charts their decline and recovery. 

Carter looks at the history of the cities in three phases:

• The industrial powerhouse phase, from 1865 to 1945
• Renaissance, from 1946 to 1985
• Re-invention from 1986 to 2015

He argues that there are clear parallels between all the cities he has studied and that lessons can be drawn. 

First up, turning cities around in the post-industrial period takes time and determination. It is important to realise the the scale is large – metropolitan and long-term. This means, a strong vision of what kind of city is being built it critical. And it means strong leadership and being prepared to take risks. Often it has involved very significant investment, such as the Olympics in Barcelona, but these grand plays aren’t enough on their own, as they can fail. 

The successful cases have all developed diversified economies, have strengthened the central city and have invested in culture, heritage and quality of life. 

The over-riding impression at the end though, underlined by perceptive questions from the audience, was that while the city may recover, many of the people who made their lives there often don’t and that tectonic societal upheavals, such as the election of Trump, or Brexit, or populism in Italy, may the cost.

Maybe we can look back on the cities themselves in 20 years with satisfaction that they recovered so well, but what happened to the broader society in the meantime is quite another question. 

Don Carter is an architect, urban designer and developer of international renown. He is currently Director of Urban Design and Regional Engagement at the Remaking Cities Institute, Carnegie Mellon University.

  Veteran management guru Charles Handy has been thinking about curves. He told a packed session at the RSA today that everything moves through curves which go up before declining. 

The tricky thing is that “you have to start the second curve before you reach the top of the one you are on.” As he puts it: “The status quo is the enemy of the second curve.”

He said he had been struck by the observation that so much of what we do today seems to have been designed for a world that has passed. “So I thought I would look at other aspects of society.”

In his book Second Curve he looks at many aspects of modern society through the lens of first and second curves. And sometimes second curves are not an improvement. 

Take business for instance. He says the purpose of a business used to be quite clear – it was to acquire customers. That changed with the arrival of the Chicago School of economists headed by Milton Freedman who challenged this by asserting that the shareholders were key. Subsequently the point of the firm became to make the shareholders rich. In order to do this effectively an incentive in the form of share options was provided. “So managers decided to increase the share price which isn’t too hard to do, by cutting investment for example.”

Capitalism is broken and its Milton Freedman’s fault. 

He points to the current craze for share buybacks as the logical conclusion of this. This, though, bleeds the corporations of investment capital. “Thus was a disastrous second curve.”

Curves don’t hurt apply to corporations. “What is the invidual’s second curve?” He asks. The answer he says is his “portfolio lifestyle” – Redefine what a job is, he urges and work for customers not employers. 

The education system gets a workout, too. “Look at our education system,” he says. “It’s bizarre.”

Emotional intelligence is what we need for the world we are moving into he says, so we should rejig our education system, make the leaving age 14 and then have tailored apprenticeships for the next four years. 

What about the welfare state? Redesign it along Singaporean lines he says. In Singapore all citizens have a Provident Fund which provides for unemployment support, healthcare and retirement. Because both the individual and the company pay in, it is seen as an investment instead of tax, he says. 

What is the second curve for politics someone asked from the floor. 

He didn’t answer directly but did point out a weakness with the current British system. We have developed a political class he says because you have to be an MP to be a minister. Most other countries don’t insist on this and as a result their talent pool for recruitment is much much larger.

In his book he says he is “throwing out ideas to provoke not prescribe.” On that level it seems to work. But in other respects observations on some areas seem dated. Take his thought on education and the welfare state. These are based on the notion that gainful work will be available to all. That notion is now being powerfully questioned.