• news
  • SUNDAY JULY 22 2007 4:00 PM

My City is Better Than Yours, Fuckheads!



I live in San Francisco. The vast majority of you idiots reading this do not. My city is better than yours. Period. No argument.

Now, I’m not simply throwing this out there willy-nilly. Sure, everyone thinks their city is the best (except for those of you living in Fresno or Denver or something) but I have actual proof. And I’m not even talking about proof in the our-weather-is-better kind of way or the have-you-seen-our-views!? kind of way. I’m talking about actual scientific proof.

F’reals, assholes.

Richard Florida, a professor from George Mason University and author of the book The Rise of the Creative Class argued that the more "gay-friendly" a city is, the more economically prosperous it will be.

In his March 2007 paper "There Goes the Neighborhood," Florida uses something he calls the "Bohemian-Gay Index" to demonstrate that "artistic, bohemian, and gay populations" have a "substantial effects on housing values across all permutations of the model and across all region sizes." He also found that more open and "gay-friendly" areas generally support higher income levels.

This morning on CNN's In the Money, Florida argued that educated kids are generally moving to the most "gay-friendly" cities after graduating from college because those cities tend to have the best job markets.


That’s right. I know you’re jealous, but it’s not my fault your cities aren’t as rad as mine. By definition, no city can be more “gay friendly” than San Francisco. Thus, all of the cool people are naturally attracted here. I didn’t look this up or anything, but I’m pretty sure that on a scale of 1-10, San Francisco’s “Bohemian-Gay Index” is going to be approximately a 150. By contrast, I’m figuring that a place like Boston or New York would be like a 17, Houston or Detroit would be a 5 and LA would be about a 2.75 (because if Los Angelenos were creative at all they would surely be able to think of a better place to live than Los Angeles.)

How does this “more gays equals more money” equation work? Well, Professor (and future SF Mayor) Florida has this to say.

"Places that were open to gay and lesbian people were also the kind of places that could attract not only smart young people, but also Indian and Chinese immigrants who come here and start a lot of high tech companies," he said. "They were attracting people across the board, building up a talent base, and then innovating and starting these new enterprises."

Florida said he thinks it is the open mindedness of these cities that has allowed economically successful communities to emerge, rather than prior economic success attracting open minded people.

"Places that a large gay and lesbian community gravitated to, a large group of musicians and other open minded people gravitated to. When these kind of geeky entrepreneurs became important economic growth, those were the places that accepted them, too," he told CNN.


The full story of how much exactly everyone should envy me for my area code’s overwhelming personal, cultural and economic superiority can be found here. In case you’re more of a passive learner, I've included some clips of the good professor explaining things. He yammers on a bit about the power of “creativity” and how that “creativity” leads to greater intelligence, cultural relevance and competitive economic ability, but don’t lose sight of what you should really be taking from his work: that San Franciscans are better than you.


Were you counting how many more times San Francisco (or its surrounding areas) were mentioned vs. how many times any other city was mentioned? Because I was, and it was twice as much as any other city. That makes the Baghdad by the Bay twice as good. It's simple mathematics and everyone else can eat a dick.

I suppose it is also worth discussing his ancillary point, because the idea that artistic and cultural creativity is a strong indicator of economic prosperity makes a lot of sense. Furthermore, the idea that artistically and culturally creative people are attracted to open-minded areas where risk-taking and divergent lifestyles are accepted makes even more sense. What’s more, the numbers seem to bear it out. The areas of the country that are known for fostering an open, creative environment are our current centers of industry. The areas of the country who are not, simply aren’t.

But again, that’s the secondary point. The real lesson to take from this is that the more you other plebes try to make your city like San Francisco, the better off you’ll be. Not just in the intellectual, cultural or existential senses, but in the pocketbook as well. Now get going, kids, and good luck. You’re gonna need it, suckers!


This is the 100th article I have been fortunate enough to write for the SuicideGirls.com Newswire. I’d like to earnestly thank those who have let me write and those who have bothered to read. It’s been a great time, and very rewarding for me. Thanks again, and I’ll see you around.

 

Previous

PAGE: 

1 ... 

4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8

 ... 23

Next

Comments
sixtyfootqueenie

sixtyfootqueenie

Australia
January 2004

JUL 22, 2007 09:29 PM

BlueValentine said:
We have a large gay population. And the most awesome lesbian cowboy bar.

LESBIAN COWBOY BAR.

And it doesnt cost 83 million dollars a month to live here.

Austin > San Francisco



lesbian cowboy bar? you are SO taking me there in March!

Kemper

Kemper

SUICIDEGIRL

California, USA

JUL 22, 2007 09:30 PM

i just visited sf a few weeks ago.. i hated it.. a lot.
if that makes me dumb and unsuccessful than id be glad to be so.
i think id rather move to texas than sf.. but ill get back to you when i actually visit texas next year.

mahogany

mahogany

I'm lost
May 2005

JUL 22, 2007 09:48 PM

SF is wonderful, and Subrosa congrats on your 100th.

I tried to read through all the comments, but couldn't quite make it through all the seriously-taken "my city is better than yours..." So someone might have already written this.

But isn't there also some correlation between attracting hip/gay/creative people who become the footsoldiers of gentrification (actually the Mission is a great example of this), who make it "safe" for real estate speculation, and that then drives up property values? I'm no economist, but it always seemed to me that's why cities support "the arts" and developers lope along with it.

Subrosa

Subrosa

San Francisco, CA
July 2004

JUL 22, 2007 10:15 PM

elysianfielder said:

"Wow. That LA joke kinda stung, didn't it?

A) Oyaji is right. There are plenty of places to live in the city that are both affordable and "bohemian". If you're truly arguing that SF doesn't have a huge bohemian element, then it's clear you haven't been here much. Next time you go, try the Mission. Hell, try the Haight or Portrero or Excelsior or Inner Richmond or Bernal. There you'll find plenty of amazing places with amazing people living the city life on minimal income. "

For the record, from 1989 to 1998 I lived in four of the six neighborhoods you mentioned. I also lived in Noe Valley, the Tenderloin, and the TenderNob. That's why I have to call you on your B.S. I knew S.F. when it was a lot more rough and tumble, and a lot more interesting. I have no beef against the place, I just find it puzzling that people who live there (especially those who'vd adopted the place fairly recently-- would that be you?) need to tout its alleged superiority.

By the way, the idea of an "LA joke" stinging is laughable. That's like when people from Boston dis New York. Say hi to Robin Williams, Grace Slick and Huey Lewis for me.



Yeah, I've lived here for longer than you've lived in LA. So you can take the "fairly recently" dig and shove it.

And again, you've taken the article I wrote wayyy too seriously. Enjoy that chemical tasting air, dude.

Subrosa

Subrosa

San Francisco, CA
July 2004

JUL 22, 2007 10:18 PM

Gristle said:

everyone else can eat a dick.



Maybe if they did their city would get more awesome!



I ♥ you.

redheadedleague

redheadedleague

Pinole, CA
September 2003

JUL 22, 2007 10:24 PM

I think we have the basis for a new theory of urban planning.

Flux

Flux

SUICIDEGIRL

Georgia, USA

JUL 22, 2007 11:11 PM

oyaji said:

Subrosa said:

elysianfielder said:

"Wow. That LA joke kinda stung, didn't it?

A) Oyaji is right. There are plenty of places to live in the city that are both affordable and "bohemian". If you're truly arguing that SF doesn't have a huge bohemian element, then it's clear you haven't been here much. Next time you go, try the Mission. Hell, try the Haight or Portrero or Excelsior or Inner Richmond or Bernal. There you'll find plenty of amazing places with amazing people living the city life on minimal income. "

For the record, from 1989 to 1998 I lived in four of the six neighborhoods you mentioned. I also lived in Noe Valley, the Tenderloin, and the TenderNob. That's why I have to call you on your B.S. I knew S.F. when it was a lot more rough and tumble, and a lot more interesting. I have no beef against the place, I just find it puzzling that people who live there (especially those who'vd adopted the place fairly recently-- would that be you?) need to tout its alleged superiority.

By the way, the idea of an "LA joke" stinging is laughable. That's like when people from Boston dis New York. Say hi to Robin Williams, Grace Slick and Huey Lewis for me.



Yeah, I've lived here for longer than you've lived in LA. So you can take the "fairly recently" dig and shove it.

And again, you've taken the article I wrote wayyy too seriously. Enjoy that chemical tasting air, dude.



LA is an abomination that should be swept off the face of the planet by the Wrath of God.



Hush.

Subrosa

Subrosa

San Francisco, CA
July 2004

JUL 22, 2007 11:18 PM

Flux said:
Hush.



The smart people leave. That's all I'm saying.

Flux

Flux

SUICIDEGIRL

Georgia, USA

JUL 22, 2007 11:19 PM

Subrosa said:

Flux said:
Hush.



The smart people leave. That's all I'm saying.



Would I go back in a minute? Just ask me.

RileyStClair

RileyStClair

Los Angeles, CA
September 2006

JUL 22, 2007 11:31 PM

i've never been to SF, but i don't think i can live anywhere that has real rain ever again.

RileyStClair

RileyStClair

Los Angeles, CA
September 2006

JUL 22, 2007 11:39 PM

oyaji said:

yourfashionwar said:
i've never been to SF, but i don't think i can live anywhere that has real rain ever again.



Exactly. Your city exists only by sucking water away from Real Places. It's a giant masturbatory fantasy; it, simply put, should not be.



it is indeed a giant, masturbatory fantasy land.
it's a tough job, but one city has to do it.

PatrickY

PatrickY

Vancouver, WA
December 2003

JUL 22, 2007 11:42 PM

Flux said:

AceT said:
Portland: San Francisco without the ridiculous expense...

...and more strip clubs.



and without any good Mexican food (or most ethnic food really) and without fun, raw all-ages shows



Are you sure you aren't talking about Portland, Maine?

I like San Francisco. I'd live there if being able to afford comfortable living there wouldn't also allow me to live comfortably in Venice, Italy. And if Portland, OR didn't have pretty much everyone I like living nearby.

_DictionaryGirl_

_DictionaryGirl_

NEWSWIRE

San Diego, CA

JUL 23, 2007 12:12 AM

San Diego in this HIZZ-OUSE! Big ups to Hillcrest! kiss

RudieCantFail

RudieCantFail

Baton Rouge, LA
January 2006

JUL 23, 2007 12:31 AM

The correct answer is no city is the best place to live. Living out in a rural area, with a big yard, sparse neighbors, and hardly any traffic. That's where it's at.

_DictionaryGirl_

_DictionaryGirl_

NEWSWIRE

San Diego, CA

JUL 23, 2007 12:34 AM

oyaji said:

LA is an abomination that should be swept off the face of the planet by the Wrath of God.



Shut your mouth!

Previous

PAGE: 

1 ... 

4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8

 ... 23

Next