Seth Godin on What Makes a City Great

I came across this post by Seth Godin over the weekend.  While he was talking about why New York City attracts so many tourists, I got to thinking that his list can be applied more broadly.

It occurred to me that what Seth believes makes cities attractive to tourists also makes it interesting to urbanists and urbanites.

Here is his list:

4305794496 58c2d71733 Seth Godin on What Makes a City Great

Flickr photograph by WanderingtheWorld

  • It’s different here (as in not the same)
  • You can find someone to have an argument with, about just about anything
  • There are fringes–cultural, educational, architectural, societal
  • More than 42 languages are spoken at the Queens public library
  • You can get something that’s not the regular kind
  • There are profit-seekers who will happily sell you something, anything
  • There are many who do things for no profit at all and will eagerly entertain, entrance and change you for the better
  • You will find a diversity of religious belief like no other
  • It’s changing
  • The food hasn’t been entirely homogenized
  • People are active
  • A stranger will go out of his way for you, perhaps, and more often than you expect
  • There is more information per minute, per meter and per interaction
  • Neighborhoods are more important than homogeneity, and co-existing is most important

As you can see, these characteristics are limited to just New York city, or even cities in general.  As Seth said:

There are New Yorks going on in towns large and small, in companies big and tiny and in families that support and respect at the same time they embrace and encourage difference.

What do you think of Seth’s list?  It is accurate?  Can it be applied in other areas? Let me know in the comments.

 

Related articles
Seth Godin on What Makes a City Great

Related posts:

  1. Social Media Makes My City Smaller
  2. 10 Great Gift Ideas for Urbanists

Tags: , , , ,

  • http://twitter.com/jamtangram James A Moore

    I saw Godin’s piece when it first came out and generally thought he was making some valid points.  However, I think your comment at the beginning of the piece can also be turned on its head.  What makes cities attractive to tourists should be irrelevant.  What makes cities attractive to residents — urbanites, if you will– is imperative.  Cities that are great places to live and learn, play and earn, will embody qualities that will be so unique as to attract visitors.  New York and Vancouver are great places to live.  Tourists also like them.  Las Vegas and Orlando were built expressly for tourism; I doubt that anyone would call them great places to live.

    • http://yuriartibise.com Yuri Artibise

      Good points, although I know of plenty of people who, while love visiting Vancouver, or New York, would never want to live here or there. Many (most?) people prefer the stability, security and sameness of their small city lives. They may like to get away from time to time, but like coming back to a predictable place. And when they do get away, it is usually to places like Vegas and Orlando; controlled tourist traps that cater to mainstream dreams.

      What caught my eye about Seth’s post was that he was naming the type of place I want to not just visit, but live. I want to live in a city that goes beyond simply being a great place to live, learn, play and earn—plenty of smaller and staid towns provide this. Just check out CNN’s best places to live list. But none of those smaller towns appeal to me. I love the unpredictability of large dynamic cities, the information overload, the fringe cultures, and even the ‘profit-seekers.’

      Perhaps tourism is the wrong measure however. Maybe it should be TV shows locations. There are plenty reason that cop shows are set in NYC vs Louisville, Colorado, and many of them are on Seth’s list. Even a show ‘about nothing’ like Seinfeld, would not be the same if it were set in Mason, Ohio.