Porchman Posted February 18, 2009 Share Posted February 18, 2009 An interesting article by Richard Florida (Creative Class author) in the March edition of The Atlantic (link). The multi-media is fun to play with, also. Florida will also be on Talk of the Nation today (if you should happen to have HD radio ). I think this ties out with a few, recent threads. What will this geography look like?...In short, it will be a more concentrated geography, one that allows more people to mix more freely and interact more efficiently in a discrete number of dense, innovative mega-regions and creative cities. Serendipitously, it will be a landscape suited to a world in which petroleum is no longer cheap by any measure. But most of all, it will be a landscape that can accommodate and accelerate invention, innovation, and creation Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crunchtastic Posted February 18, 2009 Share Posted February 18, 2009 In the section on 'mega regions' he listed the Texas "triangle" after "Char-Lanta."I don't know whether to be pissed that their name was first, or LMAO that he called it Char-Lanta. AmBrusWerp? The shorty-name madness must stop! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Porchman Posted February 18, 2009 Author Share Posted February 18, 2009 In the section on 'mega regions' he listed the Texas "triangle" after "Char-Lanta."I don't know whether to be pissed that their name was first, or LMAO that he called it Char-Lanta. AmBrusWerp? The shorty-name madness must stop! . HouDalTonio Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheNiche Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 An interesting article by Richard Florida (Creative Class author) in the March edition of The Atlantic (link). The multi-media is fun to play with, also.Florida will also be on Talk of the Nation today (if you should happen to have HD radio ). I think this ties out with a few, recent threads. . Florida tries to say that the diminished presence of NYC's financial sector may ultimately re-energize its creative economy. Who's going to pay all these creative types when the financial tycoons (and by association, all other tycoons) are so many fewer in number? He's confusing what qualifies as core employment. I also seem to recall that he used to define financial folks as creatives, themselves, so the whole concept seems contradictory. In the article, Jane Jacobs tries to argue that perhaps the sterility of NYC will give a little ground back to hipsters. Who's paying the hipsters to be hip? San Francisco only got more hip back in the late 90's during the tech bubble. ...I wonder whether Jacobs thinks that that might have something to do with that there was an influx of new money and the transient sort of youth that follow the scene that money creates...or whether they just migrated to the next big thing going on up in Seattle or Portland. Florida states: While the crisis may have begun in New York, it will likely find its fullest bloom in the interior of the country Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedScare Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 I can't believe anyone still listens to what this wannabe hipster has to say. His theories have so many holes it ought to be called the swiss cheese class. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Porchman Posted February 19, 2009 Author Share Posted February 19, 2009 Hey white people blog: #122 Richard Florida . You have to submit it! Maybe it isn't really a problem. Maybe cities get to a point where housing convenient to their cores gets so exclusive of low-income service-providing labor that the labor's wages have to go up to support them living there. And then the costs of doing business reflect that, and gradually slowing growth basically is reflecting that a city has matured. Maybe that's OK. Maybe it just means that much of that economic growth gets displaced to a different city which will also eventually mature. What's wrong with that? Maybe the first- and second-ring suburbs go urban. What's wrong with that? His proposition is similar to a couple of others which put forth the idea that the current climate will have everyone surrender owning single-family house and strive for multi-family living. I don't buy that (so to speak). I can't believe anyone still listens to what this wannabe hipster has to say. His theories have so many holes it ought to be called the swiss cheese class. I think his hypotheses are interesting, but I'm just a white person. However, as was disgested above (at length!), he's weak on what markets may really attract and sustain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crunchtastic Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 I bet some earnest white people who fancy themselves 'creative' will be at Onion Creeek this weekend, discussing the article. I am always interested in what the urban planning types have to say, but sadly too many of them just refuse to address economics and end up sounding like halfwits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KinkaidAlum Posted February 24, 2009 Share Posted February 24, 2009 Wait, San Francisco got more hip in the late 90s? And here I was just thinking it got more expensive... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.