What Happens When the Richest US Cities Turn to the World?

[LouisVanDerWright]

Originally Posted by 10023

My most NYers or Londoners. But a fair number of the ones that make NY or London what they are. People involved in business, finance or culture are more likely to move between New York and London than New York and Omaha, or London and Sheffield.

Yeah but what percentage of the population of these cities falls into this category? And of that percentage how many of them are from one of these "global cities" and not from Manchester or Des Moines or Stuttgart or some other more regional place that they will continue to return to throughout their lives?

Great cities have always been collectors of specialized talent, that's why they exist. The notion that these specialists will sequester themselves in these places and that somehow that makes these places cloistered amongst themselves is absurd. The people you speak of make up no more than a small percentage of the population of these cities with the vast vast majority of the denizens being immigrants from much more regional locales whether national or international. Those people remain much more tied to their homelands than you make them out to be. Even the globetrotting elites remain tied to their homelands, just think of how many of them are begrudgingly trekking back to Omaha for the holidays right now. The idea that this class of people somehow ties international cities more closely to one another than the vast "hinterlands" that surround them smacks of total disconnection with the reality that these elites live in. That bubble isn't geographic surrounding each of these cities, it extends no further than a halo surrounding the heads of those dim enough to believe such things. The other 99% of the population would laugh if they heard it.

[10023]

^ I don't think the percentage of the population really matters. It's not an election; every body isn't equally important from an economic standpoint.

[cannedairspray]

Nor is everyone of equal political importance, but that's a different discussion and has pretty much nothing to do with who lives in what city.

[dubu]

This country is too big. Look at Canada it's way nicer and it's smaller. Wish two countries could combine into a smaller country. Sorta like what Nintendo did and it's getting rid of the 3ds and now it has a console handheld hybrid.

[cannedairspray]

Almost none of that post made sense.

[skyscraperpage17]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

Art and culture has pretty much always been the product of the surplus wealth of the rich and it still is. It's not an accident that San Francisco has an orchestra, a ballet company, and an opera company among the top 5 nationally and arguably #2 after New York in some of those categories (which is pretty good for a city 1/10 the size of New York). It's true because its cutural institutions are still solvent . . . because its wealthy citizens contribute. In fact, places like Detroit and Cleveland could have said the same when they were rich based on manufacturing, but those days are past (Detroit was even thinking of selling its art collection, amassed in the hayday, to pay off some of its debt--I don't recall if it actually did).

Science tends to be different because it's often the product of universities put where they are by individual wealthy donors. I went to one--Duke--that was established in a nowhere burg in North Carolina on the whim of the richest family in that state who got rich off of its dominant industry. But that one family wasn't rich enough to also make Durham a hub of culture and art which it certainly wasn't during the period of my schooling.

RE: The bolded.

The terms in the Grand Bargain called for a lien to be placed on the art collection in the Detroit Institute of Arts.

The city still owns it technically, but if it fails to meet its agreed-upon obligations with the creditors, they can repossess it.

BTW, interesting fact: Most people don't know that Detroit (outside of NYC) has the largest publicly-owned art museum in the country.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by 10023

It means looking even moreso to peer cities around the world, rather than their own hinterlands.

This is the world today. A New Yorker or Londoner (myself included) has more friends and contacts in Shanghai or Buenos Aires than in Illinois (outside of Chicago) or the north of England.

The world is increasingly a network of cities, not countries. Outside of cities, and I mean major cities, nothing of consequence really happens.

Somehow i doubt New Yorkers or Londoners are more connected to people in Shanghai or wherever abroad than those in their own country. People in London most likely more well rounded and broader connected than someone from Corby but unless they're born abroad, most likely still tied to home first.

[dubu]

Originally Posted by cannedairspray

Almost none of that post made sense.

I guess you can't treat countries like game consoles. If you could every country would be rich.

[the urban politician]

..

[goat314]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

Art and culture has pretty much always been the product of the surplus wealth of the rich and it still is. It's not an accident that San Francisco has an orchestra, a ballet company, and an opera company among the top 5 nationally and arguably #2 after New York in some of those categories (which is pretty good for a city 1/10 the size of New York). It's true because its cutural institutions are still solvent . . . because its wealthy citizens contribute. In fact, places like Detroit and Cleveland could have said the same when they were rich based on manufacturing, but those days are past (Detroit was even thinking of selling its art collection, amassed in the hayday, to pay off some of its debt--I don't recall if it actually did).

Science tends to be different because it's often the product of universities put where they are by individual wealthy donors. I went to one--Duke--that was established in a nowhere burg in North Carolina on the whim of the richest family in that state who got rich off of its dominant industry. But that one family wasn't rich enough to also make Durham a hub of culture and art which it certainly wasn't during the period of my schooling.

St. Louis actually had the foresight in the 1960s (which seems very ironic to anybody that knows the area today) to create a special taxing district to maintain all of it's cultural amenities, which is why St. Louis has a first rate museum district and zoo with free entry for all.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metrop...useum_District

[pico44]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

..

Yeah. I was gonna say...

[dubu]

If everyone stopped buying video games for a day nothing bad would happen. If everyone stayed at home and didn't buy anything for a day the while system would stop working. Both are completely different I know. I was mostly joking lol

[The North One]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

It's true because its cutural institutions are still solvent . . . because its wealthy citizens contribute. In fact, places like Detroit and Cleveland could have said the same when they were rich based on manufacturing, but those days are past (Detroit was even thinking of selling its art collection, amassed in the hayday, to pay off some of its debt--I don't recall if it actually did).

The reason the collection is still there is the continued wealth of the region and its foundations/donations to the museum, there are no "past" days. The city has little to do with it and has no right to sell the collection in the first place since it is held by the DIA in public trust, it was never taken to court though.

[the urban politician]

^ Exactly. That was a very uninformed post by Pedestrian

[LouisVanDerWright]

Doesn't matter if most of the people aren't movers and shakers. The movers and shakers being internationally connected does not make the whole city so. They could very easily be killed off en masse in some kind of revolution. The people of the city in their whole make a place what it is and just because some jet setting elite likes to have a girlfriend in Shanghai to bang doesn't mean their city now has some greater aligences abroad.

[10023]

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

Doesn't matter if most of the people aren't movers and shakers. The movers and shakers being internationally connected does not make the whole city so. They could very easily be killed off en masse in some kind of revolution. The people of the city in their whole make a place what it is and just because some jet setting elite likes to have a girlfriend in Shanghai to bang doesn't mean their city now has some greater aligences abroad.

On the contrary, the "regular average working folk" are the same wherever they are. There are more of them in bigger cities than smaller ones, but they're not the reason NY is NY or Paris is Paris.

If a random 1% of New York City's population were suddenly killed, it would be big news (and possibly lead to air strikes somewhere), but then things would carry on as normal. If "the 1%" of New York City were suddenly killed, the city would change immeasurably overnight.

[cannedairspray]

Originally Posted by 10023

On the contrary, the "regular average working folk" are the same wherever they are. There are more of them in bigger cities than smaller ones, but they're not the reason NY is NY or Paris is Paris.

If a random 1% of New York City's population were suddenly killed, it would be big news (and possibly lead to air strikes somewhere), but then things would carry on as normal. If "the 1%" of New York City were suddenly killed, the city would change immeasurably overnight.

But that has nothing to do with the topic, now. You could say the same exact thing about the places I listed (if you know what they have in common), but all that it is is mental masturbation. It doesn't have anything to do with anything other than to make yourself feel important.

[10023]

Originally Posted by cannedairspray

But that has nothing to do with the topic, now. You could say the same exact thing about the places I listed (if you know what they have in common), but all that it is is mental masturbation. It doesn't have anything to do with anything other than to make yourself feel important.

No, that's exactly what the article is talking about.

[cannedairspray]

Originally Posted by 10023

No, that's exactly what the article is talking about.

I think that's just what you want to do. Tell me how important you are. Go on.

[Capsule F]

Originally Posted by cannedairspray

I think that's just what you want to do. Tell me how important you are. Go on.

Thus far, you are the number one culprit of having nothing of value to say. What is it you are trying to refute?