Well,you certainly punched some holes in the thoughts of some who see cities as the salvation for the Democratic Party.

The previous generation called it "gentrification." One hundred years ago, as noted, it was Bohemianism. Things don't change, just the names.

First of all, Seoul and Helsinki do attract creative people...if they are Finns or Koreans respectively. They are also the major cultural/capital cities of their very non-culturally diverse coutnries as well so there is little choice for those local creatives to go. For many foreign creative types, these are not the cities that they would prefer to live in.

For anyone that lives in Singapore, (i have), you will know that attracting and keeping creative people is quite a problem which the country sinks millions into each year as well as tries to loosen its stifling civil behavior laws just to attract what they call foreign talent. The smart creative Singpaoreans who are educated abroad prefer to stay abroad thus requiring the import of skills that Singapore needs from foreign countries.

Agreed that Helsinki and Seoul are probably more progressive than other cities in Finland and Korea respectively. Singapore is losing many of its own creative people, and is trying to make up for the loss by "buying" creative talent from other countries. The bottom line for governments is how to attract and retain these valuable creative people?

I think Florida's theories hold quite well for the United States. In your attempt to seek out whether his postulates are "global," I think you may be stretching them past the point for which the were designed. Looking at how U.S. citizens may or may not enjoy working in foreign cities (bringing their own cultural preferences to foreign lands) is far different than looking at how U.S. citizens seek out work and an ideal place to live within the United States.

That being said, I find this book to present an attractive and forward-looking view of U.S. society. I, too, consider myself part of the creative class. Indeed, some years ago, I moved to San Francisco just because I heard it was a "cool place to live." I literally stumbled into the roaring Internet industry, and that helped to define my career.

By the way, Salon had a great and lengthy profile of the book in 2002:

http://archive.salon.com/books/int/2002/06/06/florida/

Eric Berlin
Dumpster Bust: Miracles from Mind Trash
http://dumpsterbust.blogspot.com

Thanks. My explanation of the clustering of creative people is far more mundane than Richard Florida's. I believe that once the original founding members have established a successful company or studio, it will tend to cause the ancillary staff and supporting services to flock to this company. For example, when Hollywood started its first film studio, it needed screenwriters, producers, directors, actors, cameramen, set and costume designers, etc, to support this industry.

Similarly when the first computer company was established in silicon valley, it needed support from other hardware companies, software writers, and manufacturers of peripherals, etc.

Therefore the original creative set are simultaneously both the chicken and the egg. They are the magnets that attract other creative people to them. The latter in turn become magnets to yet other creative people. It is a snowballing effect.

Creative people, in general, tolerate divergent lifestyles, and some may even be part of the "bohemian class" themselves.

Hence while not totally discounting Richard Florida's thesis, I think the bottom line is that on the whole, people go to places where there are jobs, first and foremost. It is an added bonus if the place is also vibrant and pleasant.

I might be taken with your explanation more if you gave an example of a place that wasn't, as you put it, "vibrant and pleasant."

I've lived in the Bay Area and Southern California, and they are two of the most vibrant and pleasant places in the United States.

Even places with bad weather, like Chicago and New York, have tons of other things going for them: culture, night life, restaurants, etc. I suppose with some places, like Austin, TX (which is really a jewel of the South, by the way) you can make a chicken or egg comparison: which came first, the jobs or the pleasant/vibrant environment?

Eric Berlin
Dumpster Bust: Miracles from Mind Trash
http://dumpsterbust.blogspot.com

Thanks again. Please don't get me wrong. Fundamentally I agree with Richard Florida's thesis that creative people go to places that are "vibrant and pleasant". Where I differ is that I think that I think that individual decisions where to live and work are far more complex. While one of the factors determining where you decide to live is how comfortable you are with the city and its environs, for me, I would choose a city that had a job, or at least the potential of getting a job, period. Obviously my preference is not the same as other people's. However, I believe that I may not be too far off the mark... but I readily admit this is only a gut feeling. Personally, I lived mostly in Philadelphia-New Jersey area, because it provided me with a research job that I liked, rather than because of its great arts and social scene... and yes it does have (for me) a great arts and social scene... but I didn't know that until after I arrived in Philadelphia! I think Richard Florida is correct, but I think there are other factors in the equation that better explain why his formula does not seem to work so readily in other countries.

I think in that sense then both you and Florida are largely right. People will always go to where the jobs are to an extent, but a newly ascendent creative class (which you noted as perhaps 30% of the population) is changing the dynamic of how populations and urban hubs are forming and changing.

Eric Berlin
Dumpster Bust: Miracles from Mind Trash
http://dumpsterbust.blogspot.com