"It also transpired, in ways few anticipated, that globalisation was good for the established global cities in particular. It had been assumed that the growth of an ever larger and more integrated transnational economy would threaten the supremacy of these places. Surely emerging cities would provide the same services more cheaply and efficiently, just as they do trainers, mobile phones and call centres? But it turns out that New York and London have unique qualities that it is very difficult for newer or second-rank cities to replicate: urban infrastructure – roads, trains, homes, offices, parks – developed over the centuries; a vast range of businesses offering pretty much any service you could want; endless employment opportunities; and softer attributes, such as norms of lawfulness, a rich architectural history and cultural life. . . . "
A contender for the least-correct book title ever must be “The World is Flat.” In fact, the world is very spiky, since the agglomeration effects are so big.
Since you've mentioned them in a single context, it occurs to me that Florida and Rubin have the same problem with their claims: What they describe is undoubtedly going on (creative people play a role in cities with growing economies; creative people are attentive, open, and whatnot), but it's not clear that the related observations are actionable (whether you can grow economies by attracting creative people; whether you can become creative by being attentive and open).
If it is in fact very hard to “create” creative people, that some people are and some are not (even if many of the latter have very valuable other talents), then all policies can do is rearrange where our finite pool of creative people live. Since they will, even without activist policies, want to cluster, that is going to leave the “left behind” places in a pickle.
I'm curious if you've read any of Richard Florida's recent concerns about inequality (I haven't read his book, but found this article interesting -- https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v40/n08/ben-rogers/the-great-sorting )
"It also transpired, in ways few anticipated, that globalisation was good for the established global cities in particular. It had been assumed that the growth of an ever larger and more integrated transnational economy would threaten the supremacy of these places. Surely emerging cities would provide the same services more cheaply and efficiently, just as they do trainers, mobile phones and call centres? But it turns out that New York and London have unique qualities that it is very difficult for newer or second-rank cities to replicate: urban infrastructure – roads, trains, homes, offices, parks – developed over the centuries; a vast range of businesses offering pretty much any service you could want; endless employment opportunities; and softer attributes, such as norms of lawfulness, a rich architectural history and cultural life. . . . "
Also, another possible musical choice, "Bohemian Like You" by the Dandy Warhols -- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CU3mc0yvRNk
A contender for the least-correct book title ever must be “The World is Flat.” In fact, the world is very spiky, since the agglomeration effects are so big.
Since you've mentioned them in a single context, it occurs to me that Florida and Rubin have the same problem with their claims: What they describe is undoubtedly going on (creative people play a role in cities with growing economies; creative people are attentive, open, and whatnot), but it's not clear that the related observations are actionable (whether you can grow economies by attracting creative people; whether you can become creative by being attentive and open).
If it is in fact very hard to “create” creative people, that some people are and some are not (even if many of the latter have very valuable other talents), then all policies can do is rearrange where our finite pool of creative people live. Since they will, even without activist policies, want to cluster, that is going to leave the “left behind” places in a pickle.