新一线调查：最具人才吸引力城市 TOP 20_百度文库
两大类热门资源免费畅读
续费一年阅读会员，立省24元！
新一线调查：最具人才吸引力城市 TOP 20
阅读已结束，下载文档到电脑
想免费下载更多文档？
定制HR最喜欢的简历
下载文档到电脑，方便使用
还剩8页未读，继续阅读
定制HR最喜欢的简历
你可能喜欢 上传我的文档
 下载
 收藏
该文档贡献者很忙，什么也没留下。
 下载此文档
民用航空机场对城市和区域经济发展的影响
下载积分：800
内容提示：民用航空机场对城市和区域经济发展的影响
文档格式：PDF|
浏览次数：91|
上传日期： 09:45:21|
文档星级：
全文阅读已结束，如果下载本文需要使用
 800 积分
下载此文档
该用户还上传了这些文档
民用航空机场对城市和区域经济发展的影响
关注微信公众号后使用快捷导航没有帐号？
查看: 3989|回复: 0
最后登录在线时间350 小时人品币10991 注册时间阅读权限150帖子精华1好友
大学三年级, 积分 11009, 距离下一级还需 991 积分
人品币10991 帖子
这是一篇漂亮的文章，以及一个告诉你你如何挑选居住城市的诚恳而有见识的建议。
望出窗户，看到灯光或者日光，直觉会告诉你：你是否喜欢这座你居住的城市？每个人总有些模糊的理由，留在一个地方，不离开这个地方。尝试着弄清楚这些理由，让自己从模糊地带走出来。列出它的空气、交通、财富、时装、气味、发展机会、人际关系，在一张纸上列出来，区分客观原因和主观原因。最后找到它的“气氛”。气氛是所有因素的混沌加成，是最终的关键因素。然后再一次告诉自己：你是否喜欢这座你居住的的城市？
最终决定一座城市是否吸引我们的，是它是否满足我们对生活的雄心。野心高低决定着我们可以多大地忍受环境并追求自我可能性。在这个层次上，一座城市可以被区分为安逸和有雄心，或在两个极端之间的某个点。我们对各种事物的态度都可以按照这种方式来区分。一个社区是舒适还是高效？一位异性是迷人还是好助手？一种生活是安定还是痛苦前进？我们弄懂自己选择一座城市的理由，就能弄懂选择一种生活的理由，或者说，弄懂自己到底有多么远大的雄心。
这篇文章据说很大地影响了知乎创始人周源对社区的看法。对我来说，它提醒我及早确定自己有何雄心。一旦我确定我不满足于在安逸的那端渡过一生，我就知道我会不会长期停留在当下生活，以及我对未来究竟该做何种打算。北京是一座充满雄心壮志的地方，我很早就知道无论居住得多糟糕我都不会离开，因此我从未参与任何关于它的抱怨。同样，我也很少对当下生活充满抱怨，因为我清晰地知道它不是尽头。
市井雄心作者：Paul Graham 翻译：al_lea
伟大的城市吸引有抱负的人。在城市里徜徉时，就能感觉得到。城市在通过几百种方式向你传递着信息：你能做得更多；你应该再努力一点儿。
这些信息千差万别，令人瞠目。纽约告诉你，最重要的是：你要赚更多的钱。当然，也有其他信息——你应该更时髦一点儿；你应该打扮得更帅一点儿。但是最清楚不过的信息就是：你的钱包得再鼓点儿。
我喜欢波士顿（或者剑桥）的一点，就是这里城市在告诉你：你应当更聪明。你真的需要读一读你曾经列进读书计划的那些书了。
在你探究一个城市在发出什么消息时，答案常常会出乎意料。硅谷对聪明脑瓜很是偏爱，它传递的消息却是：你应当更强大。
这和纽约的有所不同。权力在纽约也有作用，不过纽约人有点儿见钱眼开，即使那是你不费吹灰之力继承来的。而在硅谷，飞来横财除了地产商，没人看得上眼。这里在乎的是你如何影响这个世界的。人们关注拉里和赛奇不是因为他们腰缠万贯，而是这两个家伙控制着Google，而Google影响着我们每一个人。
一个城市发出什么消息有多大的影响呢？经验告诉我们：很大。你也许认为如果自己要是有一根钢筋般的神经支撑着自己去做大事，就可以忽视环境的影响——生活地点的不同对你充其量就只有区区百分之几的影响。然而反观历史，似乎影响颇大。在每个时代里，大多数做出大事的人都扎堆在少数几个地方。
你可以从我以前写的文章里看到城市是如何有强大的影响力的：比如生活在米兰的达芬奇。实际上每个你有所耳闻的十五世纪的意大利画家都住在佛罗伦萨，尽管米兰的城市规模毫不逊色。既然米兰人的天分也并不差，那么我们可以假定在米兰也诞生了一位和达芬奇同样天资聪颖的小家伙。可是他后来呢？
如果和达芬奇一样厉害的家伙都被环境埋没了，你觉得自己又有多大胜算呢？
我是不行。即使我相当顽固，我也不会去争这个“人定胜天”。我试图去利用环境—— 我着实为住在哪里费了不少心思。
我一直觉得伯克利是个理想的地方——相当于有了好天气的剑桥。但是我前几年在那里住了一阵子，大失所望。伯克利发出的消息是：你得过得更好。在伯克利能过上非常“文明”的生活。北欧的人过来生活会“此间乐，不思蜀”。但是，这里你听不到嗡嗡而过的雄心壮志。
话说回来，这么舒适的一个地方吸引着一群关注生活质量人也不足为奇。“剑桥+好天气”就不是剑桥了。在剑桥遇到的那些人可不是随便去的，总要做出点儿牺牲——物价很贵，有点儿脏乱，而且天气很差。所以那些在剑桥落脚的人是奔着聪明人堆去的，他们可不在乎风雨交加中趟过泥泞的街道去吃一顿挨宰的晚饭。
我写作时，剑桥似乎是智力世界的首都。我知道这个断言有点儿荒谬。可是又有哪个地方能比得上呢？如果以学生的远大志向作标杆，美国大学现在似乎是最好的。其他哪个城市能来和剑桥比拼一下呢？纽约？是有不少聪明人——但是淹没在榆木脑袋的海洋里了。湾区也有不少聪明人，不过也一样的被稀释了；那里有两所好学校，不过离得太远了。以西海岸的标准说，哈佛和麻省是挨着的，周围墩了20多所其他学校。
剑桥就像一个生产想法的城镇，相比之下，纽约是造钱的，硅谷是孵蛋的。
谈起城市时，我们是在说城市里的人。很长一段时间里城市就是指住在其中的一大群人，所以这两个概念可以互换。但是从我提到的例子里，可以看到情况有变。纽约是一个典型的大城市，剑桥只是城市的一部分，而硅谷连一部分都算不上（圣何塞不是硅谷的首府，它只是硅谷边上的178平方英里而已）。
也许网络会更多的改变我们的生活。也许有一天你所处的最重要的社区是一个虚拟社区，你也就不在乎住在哪里了。但我可不在这上押宝。真实的世界更加丰富多彩（带宽要宽得多），听，城市在通过微妙的方式给你发消息。
每年春天回到剑桥，最令人愉快的事情就是黄昏时在街上散步，你能透过窗户看进路边的房子里。你要是在Palo Alto晚上溜达，只能看到蓝幽幽的电视机。在剑桥，你看到一个书架，又一个书架，摆满诱人的书。Palo Alto也许和1960年的剑桥差不多，但是你绝对猜不到旁边会有一所大学。现在它在硅谷也就是另一个有钱的邻居而已。
城市和你的邂逅通常有点儿意外——你透过窗户看到了，你无意中听到了。无需踏破铁鞋，只需静心聆听。当然凑过去八卦别人的争执可不受欢迎。不过，总体而言这里听到的闲言碎语的质量要比纽约或者硅谷的好很多。
我的一个朋友90年代搬到硅谷住，她说在那里最糟糕的就是“偷听”不到好东西。那时我还以为她故作清高呢——偶尔搂一耳朵别人的对话是有趣，不过这真能影响到你选择住到哪里吗？现在我理解她了。你听几句嘀咕实际上就知道你的邻居是阳春白雪还是下里巴人了。
无论你如何坚定不移，周围的人对你的影响也是不可忽视的。虽然没到沦为城市意志的傀儡的地步，但是身边如果没有一个志同道合的人，难免有点儿沮丧。
环境的积极影响和消极影响的程度是不同的，就和收入和支出的差别类似。绝大多数人对支出比较反感：为了不损失一美元他们竭力工作，而要是为了挣一美元，他们就没有那么卖力了。同样，尽管很多人意志坚强，不会入乡随俗人云亦云，但是周围的人要是对你心中的事业不屑一顾，能坚持去做的人就不多了。
由于志气之间一定程度上有点儿互斥，而推崇多个又难免费神，所以每个城市都倾向于一种雄心壮志。剑桥人才济济不只是聪明人扎堆的结果，更重要的是在那边人们不在乎别的。纽约和湾区的教授走路都抬不起头，直到有一天弄到了点儿风投或者开了家小公司，腰杆这才稍稍直起来一点儿。
纽约人从网络泡沫时代一直都在问一个问题：“纽约能否像硅谷那样成为创业者的乐土？”这里就能给出一个答案——人们不愿意在纽约开创公司的原因就是，纽约看重的不是这个，在这里你觉得自己就像是个乡下人。
从长远来看，这对纽约并没有什么好处。新技术的力量最终会转化成钱。可以说纽约也认识到这一点了，只不过比起硅谷，它更看重钱。而事实上，纽约在圈钱的比赛上也渐现疲态：福布斯400里纽约与加州的比例已经从1982年的1.45（81:56）下降到2007年的0.83了(73:88)。
不是所有城市都有话要对你说。只有那些成为远大理想聚集中心的地方才会。除非你住在那里，否则要辨别出城市到底发出什么样的消息很难。我能说出纽约，剑桥和硅谷的消息是因为我在每个地方都住过几年。华盛顿和洛杉矶似乎也在说点儿什么，不过我在那里都只是短暂停留，甄别不出他们的呢喃。
在洛杉矶，出人头地似乎事关重大。跻身于炙手可热的名人榜，或者跟着榜里的朋友一起鸡犬升天都会受到追捧。除此之外，洛杉矶的消息和纽约的就差不多了，健康俊朗在这里更被看重。
在华盛顿似乎最重要的是你的圈子。你最想成为一个圈内人。实际上和洛杉矶差不多，你都想冲进那个榜单或者跟榜上有名的人物攀亲。差别就在于这两个榜单的选择标准不同——其实也差别不大。
现在三藩市发出的消息和伯克利类似：你要过得更好。不过要是为数众多的创业公司选择三藩市而非硅谷的话，情况就会变化。在网络泡沫的年代，这种近似奢侈的选择就像花大钱装修办公室一样是失败的前兆。到现在我还是觉着创业地点选在三藩市不是个好主意。但是如果很多好的创业公司都这么做，就不再是个奢侈的标志了，因为硅谷的吸引力就将转移到那里去了。
我至今没有看到可作为智慧中心能与剑桥比肩的城市。英国的牛津和剑桥感觉就像伊萨卡岛或者汉诺威：虽然也在发着类似的消息，但是比较微弱。
巴黎曾经是一个伟大的知识分子聚集的中心。如果你1300年去的话，它也许和剑桥现在发出的信息一样。但是去年我在那里住了一阵子，住在那里的人们的雄心已经与智慧无关了。巴黎现在发出的消息是：做事要有风格。我打心底也赞同这个观点。我旅居的城市里，巴黎是唯一一个人们真心在乎艺术的城市。在美国，只有阔佬们才买原画，即使那些久经世故的老手最多也只能冲着画家的名头去买画的。但是在巴黎，你黄昏时分透过玻璃窗，会看到人们真的在乎画作画得好不好。可谓巴黎一瞥，美不胜收。
从很多城市里我还听到另外一个消息：在伦敦你仍能依稀听见“你得象个贵族”这样的消息。如果你刻意去倾听，在巴黎、纽约和波士顿也是能听到的。但是这个消息在哪里都很微弱。也许100年前会很强烈，而现在湮没在其他声音里了，我要抽丝剥茧的才能寻得半点蛛丝马迹。
至此我听到城市传递的消息有：财富，风格，时尚，健美，名声，政治力量，经济力量，智慧，社会阶层以及生活质量。
对于这个列表我的第一反应就是有点儿乱。我一直认为雄心是件好事，现在才明白我自己一直只局限在自己感兴趣的领域。一旦看到所有有野心的人的企图，就不再美好了。
从历史的眼光再仔细检查这张表，我有一些有趣的发现。例如，100年前，体型健美就不会上榜（2400年前倒是有可能）。女士一直比较关心这个，但是到了二十世纪末，男的也开始重视起来。我不知道原因——也许是几个方面共同促成的：女性的权力更大了；演员的社会影响以及办公室文化：在办公室你不能穿太花哨的衣服，嗯，那你最好体型要盖过同事。
经济力量一百年前应当就上榜了，但是内涵已经变了。过去它意味着掌控者大量的人员和物资。但是，现在逐渐演变成了对技术发展方向的影响，而举足轻重的人物却不见得有钱——比如重要的开源软件的领导。过去工业领袖手下有一帮在实验室里绞尽脑汁的家伙在为他思考新技术；如今的领袖是靠自己的点子包打天下的。
这个力量越受重视，社会阶层就渐渐被忽略了。我认为这两个变化是此消彼长的。经济力量，财富和社会阶层是同一个事物的不同阶段：经济力量转化成财富，而财富又是社会阶层的前提。所以，人们的关注点只是向上游移了一些。
是不是你胸怀大志就一定要去一个伟大的城市居住呢？非也；所有的伟大的城市都激发着某种雄心，但是它们并不是唯一的地方。一些工作，你只要一帮聪明的同事一起打拼就够了。
城市能够提供听众，选择同行。而这些对于像数学或者物理这种学科不那么重要——除了你的同事，没人关心你的工作，而是否优秀也很好辨别，管理委员会就能很好的招到聪明人过来。在这些领域你需要的只是一个办公室，几个不错的同事。地点就无所谓了——拉莫斯，新墨西哥，哪儿都行。
在艺术，写作或者科技这类领域里，大环境的影响就不可忽视了。这里，顶尖高手并不扎堆在几所好大学或者实验室里——一方面是因为天才很难鉴别，另一方面他们能赚到钱，懒得去大学里教书或者争取研究资金。在这样鱼龙混杂的领域里，身居一个伟大的城市就会收益无穷：你需要来自关心你的事业的人们的鼓励；因为你自己得去找些志同道合的家伙来切磋，为了避免大海捞针，就要学会借城市的吸引力的东风。
你不必在一个伟大城市终老就可撷取其精华。至关重要的几年集中在你的青年和中年时期。很明显，你不必非得在这样的城市里长大，你也不必去其中的一所大学求学。对于大多数大学生来说，有几千人的校园般的世界就够大了。而在大学里你还不必触及最难的事情——发现并解决新问题。
当你开始面对这些棘手的问题时，身处一个四周都是同党的令人振奋的环境就可令你受益匪浅。一旦发现并找到了想要的东西，如果你想，就可以离开。在印象派画家的圈子里，这个现象很普遍：他们都不在法国出生（毕加索在加勒比出生），也都不在法国去世。但是成就他们的却是那些在法国一起待过的时光。
除非你已经确定了要做什么以及哪里是事业的中心，否则你年轻时最好多挪几次窝。不在一个城市生活，很难辨别出来它发出什么消息，甚至你都很难发现它是否在发消息。而且你得到的信息经常是错的：我25岁时在佛罗伦萨待了一阵子，我原以为这里是个艺术圣殿，结果我来晚了，晚了450年。
即使一个城市是一个激荡着雄心的地方，在听到它的声音前你也不能确信你和它是否能产生共鸣。当我搬到纽约住时，一开始就激动的不得了。这地方真不错。我花了不少时间才意识到我和他们不是同路人。我一直在纽约找剑桥——还真的找到了，在非商业区，不远，一小时的飞机就到了。
有些人16岁就知道自己一生的目标，但对于绝大多数有雄心的年轻人，领悟到“天生我才必有用”要比“天生我才有嘛用”早一点儿。他们知道得做点不平凡的事情。只是还没确定是要做一个摇滚明星还是脑外科医生。这也没什么错。只是如果你壮志在胸，就得反复试验去找到去哪里生活。你要是在一个城市过得很自在，有找到家的感觉，那么倾听它在诉说什么，也许这就是你的志向所在了。
来源：，翻译来自译言网
Great cities attract ambitious people. You can sense it when you walk around one. In a hundred subtle ways, the city sends you a message: you should try harder.
The surprising thing is how different these messages can be. New York tells you, above all: you should make more money. There are other messages too, of course. You should be hipper. You should be better looking. But the clearest message is that you should be richer.
What I like about Boston (or rather Cambridge) is that the message there is: you should be smarter. You really should get around to reading all those books you've been meaning to.
When you ask what message a city sends, you sometimes get surprising answers. As much as they respect brains in Silicon Valley, the message the Valley sends is: you should be more powerful.
That's not quite the same message New York sends. Power matters in New York too of course, but New York is pretty impressed by a billion dollars even if you merely inherited it. In Silicon Valley no one would care except a few real estate agents. What matters in Silicon Valley is how much effect you have on the world. The reason people there care about Larry and Sergey is not their wealth but the fact that they control Google, which affects practically everyone.
How much does it matter what message a city sends? Empirically, the answer seems to be: a lot. You might think that if you had enough strength of mind to do great things, you'd be able to transcend your environment. Where you live should make at most a couple percent difference. But if you look at the historical evidence, it seems to matter more than that. Most people who did great things were clumped together in a few places where that sort of thing was done at the time.
You can see how powerful cities are from something I wrote about : the case of the Milanese Leonardo. Practically every fifteenth century Italian painter you've heard of was from Florence, even though Milan was just as big. People in Florence weren't genetically different, so you have to assume there was someone born in Milan with as much natural ability as Leonardo. What happened to him?
If even someone with the same natural ability as Leonardo couldn't beat the force of environment, do you suppose you can?
I don't. I'm fairly stubborn, but I wouldn't try to fight this force. I'd rather use it. So I've thought a lot about where to live.
I'd always imagined Berkeley would be the ideal place—that it would basically be Cambridge with good weather. But when I finally tried living there a couple years ago, it turned out not to be. The message Berkeley sends is: you should live better. Life in Berkeley is very civilized. It's probably the place in America where someone from Northern Europe would feel most at home. But it's not humming with ambition.
In retrospect it shouldn't have been surprising that a place so pleasant would attract people interested above all in quality of life. Cambridge with good weather, it turns out, is not Cambridge. The people you find in Cambridge are not there by accident. You have to make sacrifices to live there. It's expensive and somewhat grubby, and the weather's often bad. So the kind of people you find in Cambridge are the kind of people who want to live where the smartest people are, even if that means living in an expensive, grubby place with bad weather.
As of this writing, Cambridge seems to be the intellectual capital of the world. I realize that seems a preposterous claim. What makes it true is that it's more preposterous to claim about anywhere else. American universities currently seem to be the best, judging from the flow of ambitious students. And what US city has a stronger claim? New York? A fair number of smart people, but diluted by a much larger number of neanderthals in suits. The Bay Area has a lot of smart people too, but again, there are two great universities, but they're far apart. Harvard and MIT are practically adjacent by West Coast standards, and they're surrounded by about 20 other colleges and universities. []
Cambridge as a result feels like a town whose main industry is ideas, while New York's is finance and Silicon Valley's is startups.
When you talk about cities in the sense we are, what you're really talking about is collections of people. For a long time cities were the only large collections of people, so you could use the two ideas interchangeably. But we can see how much things are changing from the examples I've mentioned. New York is a classic great city. But Cambridge is just part of a city, and Silicon Valley is not even that. (San Jose is not, as it sometimes claims, the capital of Silicon Valley. It's just 178 square miles at one end of it.)
Maybe the Internet will change things further. Maybe one day the most important community you belong to will be a virtual one, and it won't matter where you live physically. But I wouldn't bet on it. The physical world is very high bandwidth, and some of the ways cities send you messages are quite subtle.
One of the exhilarating things about coming back to Cambridge every spring is walking through the streets at dusk, when you can see into the houses. When you walk through Palo Alto in the evening, you see nothing but the blue glow of TVs. In Cambridge you see shelves full of promising-looking books. Palo Alto was probably much like Cambridge in 1960, but you'd never guess now that there was a university nearby. Now it's just one of the richer neighborhoods in Silicon Valley. []
A city speaks to you mostly by accident—in things you see through windows, in conversations you overhear. It's not something you have to seek out, but something you can't turn off. One of the occupational hazards of living in Cambridge is overhearing the conversations of people who use interrogative intonation in declarative sentences. But on average I'll take Cambridge conversations over New York or Silicon Valley ones.
A friend who moved to Silicon Valley in the late 90s said the worst thing about living there was the low quality of the eavesdropping. At the time I thought she was being deliberately eccentric. Sure, it can be interesting to eavesdrop on people, but is good quality eavesdropping so important that it would affect where you chose to live? Now I understand what she meant. The conversations you overhear tell you what sort of people you're among.
No matter how determined you are, it's hard not to be influenced by the people around you. It's not so much that you do whatever a city expects of you, but that you get discouraged when no one around you cares about the same things you do.
There's an imbalance between encouragement and discouragement like that between gaining and losing money. Most people overvalue negative amounts of money: they'll work much harder to avoid losing a dollar than to gain one. Similarly, though there are plenty of people strong enough to resist doing something just because that's what one is supposed to do where they happen to be, there are few strong enough to keep working on something no one around them cares about.
Because ambitions are to some extent incompatible and admiration is a zero-sum game, each city tends to focus on one type of ambition. The reason Cambridge is the intellectual capital is not just that there's a concentration of smart people there, but that there's nothing else people there care about more. Professors in New York and the Bay area are second class citizens—till they start hedge funds or startups respectively.
This suggests an answer to a question people in New York have wondered about since the Bubble: whether New York could grow into a startup hub to rival Silicon Valley. One reason that's unlikely is that someone starting a startup in New York would feel like a second class citizen. [] There's already something else people in New York admire more.
In the long term, that could be a bad thing for New York. The power of an important new technology does eventually convert to money. So by caring more about money and less about power than Silicon Valley, New York is recognizing the same thing, but slower. [] And in fact it has been losing to Silicon Valley at its own game: the ratio of New York to California residents in the Forbes 400 has decreased from 1.45 (81:56) when the list was first published in 1982 to .83 (73:88) in 2007.
Not all cities send a message. Only those that are centers for some type of ambition do. And it can be hard to tell exactly what message a city sends without living there. I understand the messages of New York, Cambridge, and Silicon Valley because I've lived for several years in each of them. DC and LA seem to send messages too, but I haven't spent long enough in either to say for sure what they are.
The big thing in LA seems to be fame. There's an A List of people who are most in demand right now, and what's most admired is to be on it, or friends with those who are. Beneath that the message is much like New York's, though perhaps with more emphasis on physical attractiveness.
In DC the message seems to be that the most important thing is who you know. You want to be an insider. In practice this seems to work much as in LA. There's an A List and you want to be on it or close to those who are. The only difference is how the A List is selected. And even that is not that different.
At the moment, San Francisco's message seems to be the same as Berkeley's: you should live better. But this will change if enough startups choose SF over the Valley. During the Bubble that was a predictor of failure—a self-indulgent choice, like buying expensive office furniture. Even now I'm suspicious when startups choose SF. But if enough good ones do, it stops being a self-indulgent choice, because the center of gravity of Silicon Valley will shift there.
I haven't found anything like Cambridge for intellectual ambition. Oxford and Cambridge (England) feel like Ithaca or Hanover: the message is there, but not as strong.
Paris was once a great intellectual center. If you went there in 1300, it might have sent the message Cambridge does now. But I tried living there for a bit last year, and the ambitions of the inhabitants are not intellectual ones. The message Paris sends now is: do things with style. I liked that, actually. Paris is the only city I've lived in where people genuinely cared about art. In America only a few rich people buy original art, and even the more sophisticated ones rarely get past judging it by the brand name of the artist. But looking through windows at dusk in Paris you can see that people there actually care what paintings look like. Visually, Paris has the best eavesdropping I know. []
There's one more message I've heard from cities: in London you can still (barely) hear the message that one should be more aristocratic. If you listen for it you can also hear it in Paris, New York, and Boston. But this message is everywhere very faint. It would have been strong 100 years ago, but now I probably wouldn't have picked it up at all if I hadn't deliberately tuned in to that wavelength to see if there was any signal left.
So far the complete list of messages I've picked up from cities is: wealth, style, hipness, physical attractiveness, fame, political power, economic power, intelligence, social class, and quality of life.
My immediate reaction to this list is that it makes me slightly queasy. I'd always considered ambition a good thing, but I realize now that was because I'd always implicitly understood it to mean ambition in the areas I cared about. When you list everything ambitious people are ambitious about, it's not so pretty.
On closer examination I see a couple things on the list that are surprising in the light of history. For example, physical attractiveness wouldn't have been there 100 years ago (though it might have been 2400 years ago). It has always mattered for women, but in the late twentieth century it seems to have started to matter for men as well. I'm not sure why—probably some combination of the increasing power of women, the increasing influence of actors as models, and the fact that so many people work in offices now: you can't show off by wearing clothes too fancy to wear in a factory, so you have to show off with your body instead.
Hipness is another thing you wouldn't have seen on the list 100 years ago. Or wouldn't you? What it means is to know what's what. So maybe it has simply replaced the component of social class that consisted of being &au fait.& That could explain why hipness seems particularly admired in London: it's version 2 of the traditional English delight in obscure codes that only insiders understand.
Economic power would have been on the list 100 years ago, but what we mean by it is changing. It used to mean the control of vast human and material resources. But increasingly it means the ability to direct the course of technology, and some of the people in a position to do that are not even rich—leaders of important open source projects, for example. The Captains of Industry of times past had laboratories full of clever people cooking up new technologies for them. The new breed are themselves those people.
As this force gets more attention, another is dropping off the list: social class. I think the two changes are related. Economic power, wealth, and social class are just names for the same thing at different stages in its life: economic power converts to wealth, and wealth to social class. So the focus of admiration is simply shifting upstream.
Does anyone who wants to do great work have to live in a great city? No; all great cities inspire some sort of ambition, but they aren't the only places that do. For some kinds of work, all you need is a handful of talented colleagues.
What cities provide is an audience, and a funnel for peers. These aren't so critical in something like math or physics, where no audience matters except your peers, and judging ability is sufficiently straightforward that hiring and admissions committees can do it reliably. In a field like math or physics all you need is a department with the right colleagues in it. It could be anywhere—in Los Alamos, New Mexico, for example.
It's in fields like the arts or writing or technology that the larger environment matters. In these the best practitioners aren't conveniently collected in a few top university departments and research labs—partly because talent is harder to judge, and partly because people pay for these things, so one doesn't need to rely on teaching or research funding to support oneself. It's in these more chaotic fields that it helps most to be in a great city: you need the encouragement of feeling that people around you care about the kind of work you do, and since you have to find peers for yourself, you need the much larger intake mechanism of a great city.
You don't have to live in a great city your whole life to benefit from it. The critical years seem to be the early and middle ones of your career. Clearly you don't have to grow up in a great city. Nor does it seem to matter if you go to college in one. To most college students a world of a few thousand people seems big enough. Plus in college you don't yet have to face the hardest kind of work—discovering new problems to solve.
It's when you move on to the next and much harder step that it helps most to be in a place where you can find peers and encouragement. You seem to be able to leave, if you want, once you've found both. The Impressionists show the typical pattern: they were born all over France (Pissarro was born in the Carribbean) and died all over France, but what defined them were the years they spent together in Paris.
Unless you're sure what you want to do and where the leading center for it is, your best bet is probably to try living in several places when you're young. You can never tell what message a city sends till you live there, or even whether it still sends one. Often your information will be wrong: I tried living in Florence when I was 25, thinking it would be an art center, but it turned out I was 450 years too late.
Even when a city is still a live center of ambition, you won't know for sure whether its message will resonate with you till you hear it. When I moved to New York, I was very excited at first. It's an exciting place. So it took me quite a while to realize I just wasn't like the people there. I kept searching for the Cambridge of New York. It turned out it was way, way uptown: an hour uptown by air.
Some people know at 16 what sort of work they're going to do, but in most ambitious kids, ambition seems to precede anything specific to be ambitious about. They know they want to do something great. They just haven't decided yet whether they're going to be a rock star or a brain surgeon. There's nothing wrong with that. But it means if you have this most common type of ambition, you'll probably have to figure out where to live by trial and error. You'll probably have to find the city where you feel at home to know what sort of ambition you have.
[<font color="#] This is one of the advantages of not having the universities in your country controlled by the government. When governments decide how to allocate resources, political deal-making causes things to be spread out geographically. No central goverment would put its two best universities in the same town, unless it was the capital (which would cause other problems). But scholars seem to like to cluster together as much as people in any other field, and when given the freedom to they derive the same advantages from it.
[<font color="#] There are still a few old professors in Palo Alto, but one by one they die and their houses are transformed by developers into McMansions and sold to VPs of Bus Dev.
[<font color="#] How many times have you read about startup founders who continued to live inexpensively as their companies took off? Who continued to dress in jeans and t-shirts, to drive the old car they had in grad school, and so on? If you did that in New York, people would treat you like shit. If you walk into a fancy restaurant in San Francisco wearing a jeans and a t-shirt, they' who knows who you might be? Not in New York.
One sign of a city's potential as a technology center is the number of restaurants that still require jackets for men. According to Zagat's there are none in San Francisco, LA, Boston, or Seattle, 4 in DC, 6 in Chicago, 8 in London, 13 in New York, and 20 in Paris.
(Zagat's lists the Ritz Carlton Dining Room in SF as requiring jackets but I couldn't believe it, so I called to check and in fact they don't. Apparently there's only one restaurant left on the entire West Coast that still requires jackets: The French Laundry in Napa Valley.)
[<font color="#] Ideas are one step upstream from economic power, so it's conceivable that intellectual centers like Cambridge will one day have an edge over Silicon Valley like the one the Valley has over New York.
This seems un if anything Boston is falling further and further behind. The only reason I even mention the possibility is that the path from ideas to startups has recently been getting smoother. It's a lot easier now for a couple of hackers with no business experience to start a startup than it was 10 years ago. If you extrapolate another 20 years, maybe the balance of power will start to shift back. I wouldn't bet on it, but I wouldn't bet against it either.
[<font color="#] If Paris is where people care most about art, why is New York the center of gravity of the art business? Because in the twentieth century, art as brand split apart from art as stuff. New York is where the richest buyers are, but all they demand from art is brand, and since you can base brand on anything with a sufficiently identifiable style, you may as well use the local stuff.
Thanks to Trevor Blackwell, Sarah Harlin, Jessica Livingston, Jackie McDonough, Robert Morris, and David Sloo for reading drafts of this.
来了这么久为何不进去看看?
记住我的登录状态
您也可以使用其他账号登陆: