4 ms·

I think these articles speak with the ambition of these cities themselves despite the loss of their industrial base; to my mind this ambitiousness is correlated

I think these articles speak with the ambition of these cities themselves despite the loss of their industrial base; to my mind this ambitiousness is correlated with boosterism. And it does makes people feel good, and it might work, too, at supporting ambition. Just like how folks in NYC and SF often speak highly (as well as ill) of their homes. It feels good! I'm not sure of how some cities are more expensive correlates with overall ambition so much as it does class. People from all classes can be very ambitious even if they're unequal in wealth.

wenc 8y ago
Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I think you're right -- positivity does create virtuous cycles. On a related note, I suspect cities primarily relying on cost-of-living arguments to attract people may actually be subtly signalling the reverse of what ambitious people are drawn to. A city's primary signal should be the vibrancy of the place, not the low cost of living. In my old rust belt city, many were proud of the fact that folks who left for New York City were coming back because we offered a low cost of living. But the people returning were also those who had "given up" on their ambitions... whose dreams were broken by NYC. I realize this is a bit of an unfair generalization, because it's not universally true (some ambitious chefs who returned -- and they are very good -- were those who trained in NYC but simply found NY's restaurant economics too oppressive). But supposing we were subtly attracting folks who had "given up"... in large enough numbers, they are likely to set a certain cultural tone for the city. Great cities are not built on low cost-of-living is all I'm saying. Side: as a historical example, consider Canada vs U.S. -- Canadians are generally a more risk-averse people than Americans, and it's partly because the United Empire Loyalists were American loyalists who chose the safer route of siding with the British, whereas U.S. Americans forged their own path. The Loyalists set the tone for much of the country. As to your second point, cities with ambition tend to be expensive because people want to live in them, often in spite of the expense. However, the reverse is not true -- just because a city is expensive doesn't mean it attracts ambition. Nantucket's pretty expensive but it's not brimming with ambition. Not sure about expensive cities correlating with class... New York is very expensive, but still manages to attract ambitious working class people who are trying to make it there.
- kd0amg 8y ago
  On a related note, I suspect cities primarily relying on cost-of-living arguments to attract people may actually be subtly signalling the reverse of what ambitious people are drawn to. A city's primary signal should be the vibrancy of the place, not the low cost of living. Yes. What makes me unlikely to return to Michigan long-term, as much as I liked where I lived, is the limited career options I would have there. I am apparently willing to put up with a rather high cost of living to work on what I find interesting.
- volkl48 8y ago
  I do agree that top-tier cities are not built on low COL as their prime selling point. However, I will also point out that low COL can have advantages of it's own for the ambitious, particularly for those pursuing their own ideas rather than climbing the corporate ladder. When rent is $500/month (or less with a roommate) and bars, restaurants, etc are also cheap, it requires much less difficulty to pursue your idea. Even modest savings will let you live a normal life and last you years of trying to make a go of it, and you could get by indefinitely with a part time job if you don't have that.

wenc 8y ago

Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I think you're right -- positivity does create virtuous cycles. On a related note, I suspect cities primarily relying on cost-of-living arguments to attract people may actually be subtly signalling the reverse of what ambitious people are drawn to. A city's primary signal should be the vibrancy of the place, not the low cost of living. In my old rust belt city, many were proud of the fact that folks who left for New York City were coming back because we offered a low cost of living. But the people returning were also those who had "given up" on their ambitions... whose dreams were broken by NYC. I realize this is a bit of an unfair generalization, because it's not universally true (some ambitious chefs who returned -- and they are very good -- were those who trained in NYC but simply found NY's restaurant economics too oppressive). But supposing we were subtly attracting folks who had "given up"... in large enough numbers, they are likely to set a certain cultural tone for the city. Great cities are not built on low cost-of-living is all I'm saying. Side: as a historical example, consider Canada vs U.S. -- Canadians are generally a more risk-averse people than Americans, and it's partly because the United Empire Loyalists were American loyalists who chose the safer route of siding with the British, whereas U.S. Americans forged their own path. The Loyalists set the tone for much of the country. As to your second point, cities with ambition tend to be expensive because people want to live in them, often in spite of the expense. However, the reverse is not true -- just because a city is expensive doesn't mean it attracts ambition. Nantucket's pretty expensive but it's not brimming with ambition. Not sure about expensive cities correlating with class... New York is very expensive, but still manages to attract ambitious working class people who are trying to make it there.

kd0amg 8y ago
On a related note, I suspect cities primarily relying on cost-of-living arguments to attract people may actually be subtly signalling the reverse of what ambitious people are drawn to. A city's primary signal should be the vibrancy of the place, not the low cost of living. Yes. What makes me unlikely to return to Michigan long-term, as much as I liked where I lived, is the limited career options I would have there. I am apparently willing to put up with a rather high cost of living to work on what I find interesting.
volkl48 8y ago
I do agree that top-tier cities are not built on low COL as their prime selling point. However, I will also point out that low COL can have advantages of it's own for the ambitious, particularly for those pursuing their own ideas rather than climbing the corporate ladder. When rent is $500/month (or less with a roommate) and bars, restaurants, etc are also cheap, it requires much less difficulty to pursue your idea. Even modest savings will let you live a normal life and last you years of trying to make a go of it, and you could get by indefinitely with a part time job if you don't have that.