What message does your city send?

[cos]

Reading The Rise of the Creative Class crystallized for me the idea, which I already had, that our new age of easy communications actually makes physical, geographic locations more significant, not less. Paul Graham's new essay, Cities and Ambition, presents another view of how cities matter - one that also seems familiar, but that I hadn't thought about in quite that way.

Some cities are centers for particular kinds of activity. Such a city subtly sends you a message related to that activity - by the things you see walking down the street, by the snippets of conversation you overhear, and many other ways. A city's message, he argues, comes from the fact that there is something people in that city tend to consistently view as more important than other things, and this attitude is catching. It's a three-way cycle:

• People move to that city because they value what it values above other things, and because it is a center for that activity
• People in that city value that thing because the city is a center for it, and because a lot of them moved there because it was the thing they already valued more
• It is a center for its activity because it is known for it so people move there to do that thing, and because people living there are encouraged to value that thing, which in turn encourages the activity itself

To really know a city's message, Graham says, you probably have to live there for a while. As examples, he gives the paces he has lived, and the messages they send:

New York City: You should make more money!

Silicon Valley: Be powerful. And start companies.

Berkeley: Live better. Enjoy life.

Boston, especially Cambridge: You could be smarter. Read more, learn more. Develop ideas.

He also gives a stab at interpreting the messages of some places he's been to but hasn't lived in, while acknowledging that he's not sure and that a local might interpret it more accurately. For example, he thinks the message Paris was sending him was "do things in style; appreciate art and beauty". And not all cities send a coherent message, because not all cities are focused in that way.

Where do live? What message is your city sending you?

Have you lived somewhere else that sent a clear message? What was it?

Edit: To clarify, in case you don't click through to read Graham's essay, in his formulation a city's message is both the thing it suggest you should aspire to, and the thing that people generally respect and honor most, and think is cool. So the coolest, most honored & respectable thing you can be in Silicon Valley is someone who started a now-influential company; in Boston, it's a smart person who had a great idea or created something new; in New York, it's being rich.

Comments

[awfief.livejournal.com]

I found it more to be like "I'm more important than you. Get out of my way."

I don't really feel the "be smarter" in Cambridge/Boston. Also, for whatever reason, this all strikes me as a very middle-and-higher-class white and perhaps even male viewpoint of cities. Because when you're poor, LIFE tells you that you need more money, not a city. I don't believe that high school graduates in the Boston area constantly feel a loss at not going to college, at least not any different than other cities.

[cos]

You're right about it being a different point of view, but it's also a different scope. He's writing about "ambition" - what you should aspire to, what's respected. Having a lack of money, no matter where you are, means that you need more so that you can have enough, but that's unrelated to the focus of the place you live in or the messages (in Graham's terms) that it sends you. He even kind of vaguely addresses this distinction, in talking about different human reactions to negative vs. positive risk. Bruce Schneier recently addressed that same distinction from another angle in this blog post.

You're addressing the "negative" side, Graham's discussion is of the "positive" side (not a value judgement).

[feuervogel]

The idea that everyone in a city universally agrees that the same goal is admirable is ludicrous.

What's respected, what's admirable, what should be aspired to... why should my neighbors tell me that? What smegging business is it of theirs?

I stand by my initial response: pretentious wankery.

[awfief.livejournal.com]

You're right about it being a different point of view, but it's also a different scope.

I'm saying that scope does not apply to everyone. That to even get to that scope, you have to overcome a lot of obstacles -- and that those who are privileged have fewer of those obstacles.

He's writing about "ambition" - what you should aspire to, what's respected.....once you get to be part of the privileged middle-class (or higher class) and don't need to, for whatever reason, spend time focusing on minority issues such as race, disability, gender, sexuality, religion......

[feuervogel]

I think you've hit on one of the vague, nebulous reasons I think this whole concept is stupid. Thanks!

[cos]

Huh. I was having a hard time figuring out what you meant, but this makes it even harder. I don't think I completely agree or disagree with you, but I know that I completely don't get what you're saying. I harbor a suspicion that you don't see what he's saying, and that you have an emotional reaction opposed to it, but I don't even know that much.

[feuervogel]

If the bottom of Maslow's pyramid isn't being fulfilled, being told to aspire is meaningless and perhaps insulting.

The essayist's position is one of unexamined privilege.

The idea that an entire city -- all of the residents -- believes that the same trait is admirable is patently ridiculous.

[cos]

If the bottom of Maslow's pyramid isn't being fulfilled, being told to aspire is meaningless and perhaps insulting. The essayist's position is one of unexamined privilege.

Oh, okay, I thought I addressed that above: You're just talking about different things. Both can be true at the same time. Even if some people only see one, and some people only see the other (and, of course, some people see both).

The idea that an entire city -- all of the residents -- believes that the same trait is admirable is patently ridiculous.

Sure. But also, a straw man.

[feuervogel]

I am extremely bad at articulating a gut response.

I think it's pretentious for anyone to say "the coolest thing to be in my city is a smart person," which implies that only smart people are good enough to live there, so not-smart people can FOAD.

I can't explain it any better than that, unless you want me to bring my personal insecurities into the mix.

[cos]

Hmm, okay, I think I may see what you're saying. I don't think I agree with your interpretation of his article, but perhaps I understand what you mean.

[vito-excalibur.livejournal.com]

At the point that you're saying "if anyone implies that I am not cool, what they are really saying is that I should go die in a fire" I think your personal insecurities have not only joined the mix but are already starting to form soft peaks. Really? It's pretentious to say that there is a quality that makes some people cool that other people do not have?

[feuervogel]

In my circle of friends in the Chapel Hill area, the coolest thing you can be is the knowledgeable anime/SF fan. But there's no fucking way that the "message" the town of Chapel Hill "sends" is that "you should aspire to be an SF fan." That's complete and utter bullshit.

As is the idea that an inanimate object (eg a TOWN) can send a message.

And I'm done with this bullshit.

(edited) I lied. I think the answer just occurred to me as to why I think it's pretentious wankery, as I finished my lunch. It's talk from the oh-so-cool City Folk about how Important and Cooler Than Thou their awesome cities are. To hell with that.

[leora.livejournal.com]

Maslow isn't all he's cracked up to be. I've never had all of the bottom of the pyramid at one time, and I probably never will. But I still want the higher portions. I think being poor makes this more relevant, not less. I think when you are under-privileged, you are more aware of the way that the people around you think you're not living up to expectations.

I become more aware of my culture clash when I move from an area where I am fairly respected because I am smart and I help people and I write creatively, which are very valued things in several places/social circles and then move to one where I am considered massively defective and low on the scale because I do not work, am severely ill, and am poor.

If I were rich, healthy, and well-employed, I'd probably only notice people valuing my intelligence or creations, but because I am not, I notice when I am in an area where other things are valued.

[fenicedautun.livejournal.com]

I actually do agree with the "be smarter", but where "be smarter" is achievable by everybody regardless of past education/intelligence-aptitude. It's more about a general acceptance of reading (reading on the NY subway will often get you dirty looks), art, whatever you're interested in learning, people generally approve (as opposed to other cities where there can be an attitude of "what are you going to do with that knowledge")

[cos]

Yeah, a central part of his argument is that you can tell when people around you in general approve of an activity and find it worthwhile, and that this encourages your latent tendencies to do that thing.