I think the communities that have attracted businesses that require both blue collar and white collar jobs have been able to turn into desirable communities. The more of each type of job makes the city's economy better and the more job opportunities for college educated helps too.
Some businesses and places I can think of are:
Large four-year education universities, hospitals, law firms, engineering and architecture firms, technology based companies, and environmental based companies.
Historical buildings and natural landmarks.
Now, I find some of those businesses haven't located in certain communities because there is a lack of people wanting to move to certain communities. For instance, many cities and towns in the Central Valley rely heavily on farming, shopping centers, and small amounts of blue collared jobs because the flat scenery, hotter weather, and built up downtowns deter people that have an education and work in white collar jobs from working there. Since these communities have these issues, they are struggling in the economy since most of the middle class blue collar jobs have been cut.
Anyways, I was just thinking about this. Maybe this a city planning approach to thinking about certain communities in California.
Also, I heard shopping malls are bad for downtowns and communities as they draw people away from downtowns and take away character. Would this also mean that open air malls are bad for downtowns and communities? Can their be any benefit for a community besides the fact if a community didn't have a downtown.
I read this about lifestyle centers: http://retailtrafficmag.com/news/lif...sons_05172010/
It sounds like lifestyle centers or open-air malls are hurting as bad as enclosed malls. I think that malls are bad idea. I think like the article mentioned that we can fix our enclosed malls, but
building new open-air or enclosed malls is not working. I think that the big box centers and mix-used centers in downtowns are doing best.