In this chapter of his book “The Rise of the Creative Class,” Florida talked about a number of things that yet again summarized what we have learned in this class: the vitality of a community.

His method of searching of what people, the epitome of which can be summed up in the term “creative class,” really look for in their neighborhood. Where people work and live, in Florida’s opinion, depends on his so-called “quality of place” or “territorial assets” that accompany a place and make it attractive to people. These assets include “what’s there,” the combination of built and natural environment, “who’s there,” the community that is the center of the neighborhood, “what’s going on,” the vibrancy of the neighborhood. It makes sense when one of the people cited in this chapter said that what he wants, is a place “that is not done,” a place that is constantly in motion and changing its facade every other day, a place where creative minds can find their inspiration drawn out of the neighborhood, the architecture, and the people.

It confuses me, however, when the author claims that creative people prefer traditional suburban lifestyle. When one thinks about the suburb, one can imagine the repetitive scenes of lines of cars leading into the nearby metropolis, of people crowding in old diners for breakfast, lunch, and dinner, of soccer moms driving their kids back in time for dinner, of shutting of the light at 11pm. When one thinks about the suburb, one thinks about repetition, not changes, about what’s done, not about what “is not done.” But what makes even more sense, that not every suburb is an ideal place, the suburbs that the author refers to locate in Long Island, Silicon Valley where easy accessibility is provided into New York City, San Francisco, and vibrant metropolis. Like the author says, the suburb stands alone is not attractive, but when they are located near the cultural hubs that are the cities, they become “product of the openness and diversity of their broader milieu.”

When Florida mentioned Robert Putnam and his theory of social capital, i feel myself lamenting to his painful yet realistic thoughts. People have become increasingly disconnected from one another and from their communities, resulting in a loosening bonds between family, friends, and the broader neighborhood of which they are a part. This weakening bond between people thus leads to detrimental consequences, most of which I can relate to. Look at Baruch College, which has been the beacon of school spirit and strong community in the past, has become today. Longer class time due to a heavier curriculum, increasing pressure of time and the pursuit of internship and jobs identify the first key factor in Robert Putnam’s civic malaise. Second is the fact that Baruch is a commuting school where classmates actually live far away from each other; most of the kids are from Long Island, Queens, Bronx, and Brooklyn whereas the school is located in the heart of Manhattan. Third is the plethora of distractions that modern technology presents to the young and naturally easily distracting college students. Instead of socializing with each other, they browse the Internet to watch YouTube, chat with friends in other, way more distant areas on Facebook, or laugh by themselves at one of the memes on 9gag. Fourth is the dominance of the me-generation or the X-generation that makes up the majority of the school. The detrimental consequences that I have mentioned are those that I have already experienced: weakening community, poorer health, less happiness, and a disappearing appreciation for knowledge. The author was lucky to have fared well in his neighborhood in Pittsburg, PA. It sounded like a wonderful place to live and belong to.

Richard Florida’s chapter regarding the creative class goes over a topic that is not entirely foreign to me. The creative class, a new era in society, is a concept I have gone over in several of my sociology and economic classes in high school. However, what I enjoyed about this chapter was that Florida focused less on people, but more on the development of cities due to this rise of creative class. He zooms in on assumptions and old theories regarding the structure of cities and then challenges them to apply to the modern day cities. Florida’s ultimate point is that creative people need creative cities, and he does a great job by giving examples backed up by his own research.

The primary point that Florida brings up is that we have moved on from industrial cities, and have now moved on to creative cities. What people are looking for in cities has changed over time, and a prime example he gives is of  the college student he refers to from Carnegie Mellon who is now choosing Austin, a still developing expanding city, versus Pittsburgh, an established older city, to live in. The previous qualifications a successful growing city have changed to increasing diversity, creativity, nightlife, activities and affordability instead. Initially people moved to cities because that’s where their work took them, but now industrial cities has changed to creative cities where people move to have an overall better lifestyle.

The next assumption that Florida successfully challenges is the original idea from Thomas Friedman, which is that “you can innovate without having to emigrate.” Globalization has made the world a smaller place for sure in terms of communication, however location still matters. This explains why that now more than ever the growth of cities and an urban area has imploded, resulting in 50% of cities containing 75% of the words population. Florida provides a good analogy by saying that the “world is anything, but flat, and its spikes are getting higher and higher.” The spikes are referring to the growing cities that have clusters of the creative class. Globalization doesn’t spread out activity evenly across the world, but rather it creates spikes where the most innovate and creative come together.

Another interesting point that Florida brings up is the idea of human capital. It was notable to see how Florida tied together urban theorist Jane Jacobs and Robert Lucas’ theories to come up with this new economic factor of human capital or as Lucas called it “Jane Jacobs externalities.” Labor, capital and knowledge are all-important economic factors but as Lucas points out there is nothing more important than the talent, ideas and energy real people bring in. I really liked the example of how the music industry which is very competitive and independent, has joined together in major cities such as Los Angeles and New York City. You would think that to face less competition, musicians and artists would spread out and dominate in the areas that they are in, but instead they rush to the innovate, creative cities where they all fight to rise to the top. This directly showcases how creative people come together to multiply together to exponentially grow.

Overall, I really enjoyed Florida’s piece because it ties directly back to our project. Understanding the basis of what a successful growing city is crucial to urban development. The way a city is structured and the different creative atmospheres it contains are important to the economic development of that city. Creative people, educated people, innovate people need a place to stay where they can express and work the most efficiently.