Throughout this entire read I have for the most part agreed with Florida and his perspectives on how the demographics of the United States and world is changing...until I got to the fourth portion of his book: Community. Here he specifically talked about his "adopted hometown" of Pittsburgh and how it cannot keep people in the city. I must say, that being from Pittsburgh myself - I know that that is not true. And it is especially not true post-recession. While I realize that this book was published many years ago, I do know that now Pittsburgh is an incredibly thriving city that is actually attracting more and more young people every year. His claim that people do not stay in Pittsburgh is not true at all. The majority of my high school did not want to leave the Pittsburgh area, even when it came to colleges because of the amount of resources that were available. From the nightlife, to the sporting events, to the cultural district, to the central location - Pittsburgh has exactly what Florida claims the Creative Class wants in a living community. His blanket statement about my hometown made me rethink the validity of the rest of his claims. Carnegie Mellon, the college where Florida teaches and does his research, is a very eclectic community, so it surprises me that he would propose to say that people from CMU are looking elsewhere to live. CMU is a very diverse campus in terms of interests and specialties. The university is known for their top-notch theater students and their high-tech computer science programs. Both of these industries call for the students to naturally migrate elsewhere in the country - New York City, LA, and Silicon Valley - where the entertainment and technology industries are thriving. This simple analysis makes me think Florida made a slight generalization about certain cities that have a "hard time attracting the young creative class".
Maybe at the time of this publishing Pittsburgh was a different place in terms of the workforce and the community, but I know for a matter of fact that is not the case today. I also know that I would be going back to Pittsburgh if I hadn't already been from there to begin with. As a almost-grad, I want to see a little bit more of the world before I settle down anywhere. But I do have friends that have moved to Pittsburgh or lived in Pittsburgh for some time post-graduation, and each person said how much they fell in love with the city. They have been developing and really cultivating the cultural and nightlife scene in Pittsburgh, making the South Side (which is right outside Downtown) the hip, diverse, interesting place the creative class would flock towards.
I also didn't agree with Florida's claim that people don't "slavishly" go to where the job is. Since the recession, young people are happy just to have a job. Obviously the crash didn't happen when this book came out, but I do think that a lot of people go to where the best job is. I know very few people that would actually decide not to take a job because its location wasn't stimulating. For me even, I am going to one of those "stimulating" places post-graduation, New York City, and if I had a choice - I would move down South. But I didn't have a choice, so I am going where the best job is that will advance my career. Never did I think about if the culture was going to be stimulating and challenging to my creativity.
I think times have changed a lot since the publishing of this book, and while most of the information in the book may hold true - this section didn't really stand the test of time. I would be interested to read what Florida has to say about the Creative Class post-recession.
No comments:
Post a Comment