I found David Bryne’s article the most interesting out of all the readings. Bryne expresses his love for the City as one of the residents and mentions that New York was voted for the world’s favorite city (heavily dependent on business side though). He mentions one of the unique qualities of New York being ethnic diversity and its acceptance and welcoming of immigrants. People come to New York City for the city’s “possibility of interaction and inspiration”. The city was presented as a symbol of opportunity.

Bryne then uses some harsh words and says poverty/hardship does not promote creativity. He’s saying that this is just some fantasy and that people eventually get worn down no matter who you are. He’s saying that the city’s physical attributes have greatly improved, but the “mind” of the city is being suppressed by the elitists of the city. With middle class barely able to afford to live in the city, many different types of people – “the resources that keep the city vibrant” – are disappearing. With money being the primary objective, many “talented” people are focusing on financial sector.

With elitists being the primary power holder in New York City, young and talented people need to establish themselves in the city or this city will turn into just like any other business centered cities. With creativity being one of the most important factors for improvements of the city, what promotes creativity from people? what type of environment is suited the best? Also, the article mentions solving social and economic situation, which is really vague. With top 1% of the city holding the power, what is needed to be done to restore at least some social and economic equality? Is it even possible with the way the city government ran in Bloomberg’s era (wealthy gaining more power)?

I was intrigued by Richard Florida’s description of the ‘new normal’ when it comes to urban governance. To me, it seems as though his urban theories are essentially neoliberalism packaged and sold under a different academic moniker. The hallmarks are all there–a refusal to discuss negative externalities, the fetishization of “coolness” without admitting that coolness is by definition authentic, the belief that cutthroat competition is the only way cities interact, and so on. This competitiveness is a crisis, Florida warns us, as if great necessity makes greater delusion acceptable.

Moreover, his “3Ts” theory is flawed. It seems unlikely that young, educated people move based on their perception of a city’s LGBT friendliness. This is partly because that’s a non-salient variable when choosing to uproot one’s life, and partly because cities are by and large already centers of tolerance, even in the South (the city with the most LGBT people per 1000 is Atlanta.) Moreover, there are causative issues. Technology doesn’t pervade a city unless that city has an educated workforce…and educated workers don’t move to cities unless there are firms offering jobs to employ them. Two of the Ts are hopelessly confounded. My question is: How might we improve on the “3Ts” theory and better explain why the creative class flocks to certain cities?