Research just out indicates that any urban investment by the Obama Administration should go not to conventional urban areas but only to those already successful "cool" places with sunshine, coastlines and/or fun stuff to do. If places like Austin and Seattle are already financially successful and growing, why would they need federal investments from an Obama "New New Deal"? If it ain't broke, don't earmark to fix it.
I have got nothing against recreational capital, but it sounds like the researchers are advocating a flighty list of priorities in conditions where only the hip survive under the arbitrary shield of government. Federal money should be going to bolster the infrastructure, jobs, and schools of urban areas that are not able to keep up in the race to be stylish.