« The ongoing dispute over file-sharing papers | Main | Mad Men »
Who's Your City?
The always-interesting Richard Florida has a new book out, namely Who's Your City: How the Creative Economy is Making Where to Live The Most Important Decision of Your Life.
The book tells you how to find the city for you (for me it is Los Angeles, but somehow closer to everything else, and with better bookshops) and why the mood of a city matters.
Is the following true:? The class of city you live in matters less than before, because you can use Amazon or Starbucks in either Manhattan or Chattanooga. But within a class of city, personality now matters more precisely because people can sort themselves on the basis of personality rather than convenience.
What about me? I enjoy living in an area which is not totally flat and I also enjoy the feeling that I can drive from one mini-region to another and experience changes; Maryland and DC really do differ from Virginia. I felt hedged in living in Wellington, New Zealand and in general I don't like having my back to the water.
Last week Robin Hanson and I discussed which would be the best city to live in if a) all your basic needs were taken care of, and b) you could not otherwise spend any money. Oxford, even with mediocre weather, seemed like a strong pick. There is a true intellectual community and everything there costs a lot anyway; not being able to spend any money isn't so different from the reality.
Posted by Tyler Cowen on March 10, 2008 at 07:26 AM in Books | Permalink
Comments
If we're being hypothetical, why pick just one city to live in?
Posted by: Trieu Truong at Mar 10, 2008 7:49:04 AM
I find your "hedged in" and "back to the water" comments fascinating, because they are so alien to me.
I cannot live away from the ocean. The interior U.S. feels to me as if it's pressing all around, ready to collapse on me - even when it's flat.
Similar-sounding reactions, but from opposite inputs.
Posted by: Damon Katz at Mar 10, 2008 8:54:28 AM
My friend Rick likes to ask people where they would live if they could live anywhere in the world, and tends to accept as valid only the answer "but I *can* live anywhere in the world".
Personally I like hills at my back because I grew up with hills at my back. I'm complicated like that.
Posted by: Seamus McCauley at Mar 10, 2008 9:10:35 AM
If you want to end up wizened and dried up intellectually, then, yes, by all means, Oxford is the place.
Posted by: Rue Des Quatre Vents at Mar 10, 2008 9:29:36 AM
Absolutely. But the academic's viewpoint on this (as on many things) is rather skewed. For most people, choice of city is still primarily based on which one offers the best career potential for your industry.
I grew up in NYC, and it took me a while to realize that NYC is really only good if you are in one of the (many) industries for which NY is the place to be. If you are interested in policy and Austrian economics, its actually very much the wrong place to be, as it turns out.
Meanwhile DC is the epicenter.
If you have a choice between two perfect (or equally good) places for your career, then you can start thinking about personality types, weather, hills at your back, etc.
(Unless your career is also about hills and weather - like farming).
Posted by: liberty at Mar 10, 2008 9:30:21 AM
Of course, this "where would you live" question is lacking any temporal dimension. After many years on the prairies, I wanted to live by the ocean, so I did. Then I wanted to live in the mountains, so I did. Then I wanted to live in the desert, so I did. Then I wanted to live in a big northeast city, so I am.
Where will I want to live next? Not sure, as I've yet to grow tired of where I'm living now, but the idea of one "ideal" place is utterly alien to me.
Posted by: bartman at Mar 10, 2008 9:31:54 AM
The key aspect of the question is "not being able to spend any money". I would really like to see how people's preferred choices change with and without this condition.
For instance, Stockholm goes up the ranking under those conditions. If I am prevented from becoming rich, then I choose to live in a city that is designed for and populated by people that are prevented from being rich and they are happy about it.
Posted by: londenio at Mar 10, 2008 10:09:03 AM
I think the general preferences for "hills" may be reflecting a secondary variable - they are an indicator of variety and of natural compliance. A city built on completely flat terrain is likely to have a comparatively amorphous or artificial character, and those are things that may be intrinsically unpopular. But hills give structure to a city, divide it into neighbourhoods … as do rivers and natrual harbours.
Although I did mention to Dr Cowen just a short while ago, one big city can be pretty much the same as another :)
Posted by: R N B at Mar 10, 2008 10:12:53 AM
I find it rather interesting that no one (other than Tyler--nominally) has mentioned cultural amenities or communities.
I think that liberty's point about the existence of a professional community extends to avocational communities. Even if I can read a book about a given hobby in Chattanooga, that doesn't mean that I can practice it at a high level, or even practice it all, if there doesn't exist a community of fellow hobbyists.
Certainly the Internet and cheap travel have made it much easier to be, say, a model train builder, because you can more easily get the supplies you need, and you can see what others around the world are doing. But I'm not convinced that geography has yet ceased to play a pivotal role for many hobbies, simply because the Internet is an imperfect substitute for experiencing things in person. Most importantly, it is often the convenience of a preexisting community that gets people involved in such hobbies in the first place.
Then again, what do I know. I picked the city (DC) with the best swing dancing. ;-)
Posted by: Lee at Mar 10, 2008 10:14:12 AM
New York or Chattanooga - I'll take Chattanooga. Beautiful scenery, reasonable prices, mild weather, plus no state income tax. Doesn't seem too difficult a choice to me.
Posted by: Ned at Mar 10, 2008 10:56:22 AM
I really question how easy it is for the average person to move to their ideal location. First, there's the issue of getting a good job somewhere you want to live. Second, many people have extended family considerations.
Posted by: Ted Craig at Mar 10, 2008 11:21:07 AM
I very much prefer hills behind and sea before, otherwise I agre that Oxford is very fine. Edinburgh is wonderful.
Posted by: dearieme at Mar 10, 2008 11:52:10 AM
Ned: I guess it depends on how often you like going to the opera or museum, or flying somewhere else.
Posted by: bartman at Mar 10, 2008 12:30:09 PM
Boulder seems perfect. Picturesque, only minutes from mountains, English and Spanish speakers - can sit on a lawn chair
with your feet in a blow-up pool and watch the love bugs drive by, and better yet write inciteful columns in the Denver
Post ;)
Posted by: TomG at Mar 10, 2008 12:33:13 PM
LA is getting cheaper -- the median price of a home in the San Fernando Valley fell from $655,000 in June to $500,000 in January, with no bottom in sight.
Posted by: Steve Sailer at Mar 10, 2008 4:55:18 PM
For the true introvert, community is largely irrelevant, except insofar as Craigslist density counts. Might as well stick with where you were born, where you can find a job, or where you like the scenery, all of which are why I'm sticking with Denver.
Posted by: Noah Yetter at Mar 10, 2008 5:03:45 PM
"If you have a choice between two perfect (or equally good) places for your career, then you can start thinking about personality types, weather, hills at your back, etc."
Why do so many people treat career preferences as lexicographic? This isn't obvious to me at all. I would assume, first, that preferences are concave on every dimension. Sure, career means money, and we think money is almost linear, but I think that's just to make the math easier.
Posted by: PLW at Mar 10, 2008 5:31:20 PM
Why a city at all? I happily live on a dirt road in the foothills well above Denver, a place I seldom visit... and I don't feel the least bit deprived.
Posted by: James Ament at Mar 10, 2008 7:07:04 PM
Why a city at all? I happily live on a dirt road in the foothills well above Denver, a place I seldom visit... and I don't feel the least bit deprived.
Posted by: James Ament at Mar 10, 2008 7:07:20 PM
Why a city at all? I happily live on a dirt road in the foothills well above Denver, a place I seldom visit... and I don't feel the least bit deprived.
Posted by: James Ament at Mar 10, 2008 7:07:40 PM
Why a city at all? I happily live on a dirt road in the foothills well above Denver, a place I seldom visit... and I don't feel the least bit deprived.
Posted by: James Ament at Mar 10, 2008 7:07:55 PM
If you like LA, move down here and teach at Claremont!
Posted by: Ben Casnocha at Mar 11, 2008 12:05:35 AM
Hong Kong is my place. And I've met quite a few people recently who've chosen to retire here. Pity about the pollution though.
According to an ex-copper who had Oxford as his beat it is one of the worst places in the world to live! A lot of social problems (outside the rarified academia) ...
Posted by: gweipo at Mar 11, 2008 7:53:44 AM
"My friend Rick likes to ask people where they would live if they could live anywhere in the world, and tends to accept as valid only the answer "but I *can* live anywhere in the world"."
This man has clearly very limited experience of actually trying to emigrate. (Do you have a Masters degree or above, or a job paying $40,000 dollars plus? If not, get out of the UK.)
Posted by: Tim at Mar 11, 2008 5:11:00 PM
Where's your city?
Asking someone what their favorite city to live in is like having one economist remark to another that he's always wanted a Porsche.
I live where I do because it's got a low cost of living and a good economy (current income/house price ratio for me is 1/3, soon to be 1/2). I keep fantasizing about moving to Knoxville, riding my motorcycle in the Smokies, and seducing beautiful college girls.
But I don't, just like the economist who doesn't have a Porsche.
Posted by: secret asian man at Mar 12, 2008 4:09:28 PM
I agree with PLW. Many people (even some who are wrapped up in their careers!) choose a city based on proximity to loved ones. This seems not to merit too much discussion in some jet-setting circles. How sad.
Posted by: Reader, I married Myron Scholes at Apr 13, 2008 10:05:02 AM
