Happy New Year!
Jane at See Jane Compute on ScienceBlogs eschews New Year Resolutions for a New Year Theme instead.
I like the idea.
On the whiteboard above my desk, it now reads" "2009: Progress not Perfection".
I've also had a serious re-think about my priorities and spent several happy hours with my new diary, laptops and notebooks planning out my year.
This year, I'm going to try to do less, and be realistic about what I can achieve. I'm aiming for a relaxed routine, to give me heaps of energy to be happily productive when I do work.
I know that if I make sure I get plenty of rest, exercise and relaxation, I'll be much, much more productive, especially if I take time out to plan.
It's going well so far!
Do you have a theme for the year? Do share.
Showing posts with label ambition. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ambition. Show all posts
5 January 2009
29 May 2008
Cities and Ambition: Reflections on Paul Graham's essay
I'm utterly impressed by the quality of thought and writing that Paul Graham shares on his website. His latest offering, Cities and Ambition, posits the theory that there are different kinds of ambitions. What I would call the currency of esteem, of value, varies from place to place, as like attracts like. People who are ambitious in that way cluster in that city.
Cambridge, Massachussets (home to Harvard and MIT) values ideas. New York, money (earned or unearned). Silicon Valley, power to change the world. Paris values style and art, great painters once came out of Florence, or Bruges. Washington DC values connections, as does LA - to movers and shakers in politics for the former. He posits the theory that London is about being more aristocratic, which doesn't quite work for me.
His writing has got me thinking about what New Zealand cities value.
Wellington has the government sitting side by side with creativity. It's not a city where how much money you have matters, it's more about influence, over sub-cultures or other behaviours. So it's about who you know.
Auckland, is more about money, and consumption, where no child in middle class suburbs may return from a birthday party without a few items in the goody bag.
Christchurch I'm still working out. It may be about belonging, of fitting in, and having space. Flashy-ness isn't prized. It's more about lifestyle, having a comfortable home, enjoying the greenery, and easy access to the countryside and ski-fields. It seems to attract incomers by virtue of how it looks - the flat green expanse of space, where you can enjoy an outdoors lifestyle, rather than its vibrancy as an ideas hub (although practical ideas like software programming fit in rather well - ideas which let you do things). There's a simplicity to life here - gridded streets, easy to drive. You're either on the flat, or in the hills, and nothing in between. Maybe it's about niceness rather than greatness. Nice car, house, boat, sport on Saturdays and space to shop, but not to show off. Ease, comfort, enjoyment.
Dunedin also seems not to have money as it's currency. My impression (never having lived there) is that Dunedin has something you can belong to, more of a community feel. There's a badge of pride to have survived the winters, and drunk in the pubs and to not have come from a main centre. To be somewhere where creative people flourish, and people are still down to earth.
Of course within any city there are sub-cultures, and I still think the 8 Tribes of New Zealand is a really good analysis.
Graham says you can't really know a city's ambition unless you live there which may be why I find it hard to get a grip on Dunedin, and why I think he hasn't got London quite right. There's more to London's ambition than being aristocratic. I lived there for 6 years, and I think London is about finding your sub-culture, and discovering who you are, choosing a community to belong to. It's a place to go, find out who you are, experiment with new things and leave.
Success in London isn't necessarily the "It girl" phenomenon, it's more linked into the cultural side of things. It's the sort of city where lots of people read novels on the tube or train, and the Orange prize shortlist can be on prime time TV. Where you go as part of a grand tour, to find the opportunities in your field. The most successful then leave London, having a place outside and just coming in to visit.
Cambridge, Massachussets (home to Harvard and MIT) values ideas. New York, money (earned or unearned). Silicon Valley, power to change the world. Paris values style and art, great painters once came out of Florence, or Bruges. Washington DC values connections, as does LA - to movers and shakers in politics for the former. He posits the theory that London is about being more aristocratic, which doesn't quite work for me.
His writing has got me thinking about what New Zealand cities value.
Wellington has the government sitting side by side with creativity. It's not a city where how much money you have matters, it's more about influence, over sub-cultures or other behaviours. So it's about who you know.
Auckland, is more about money, and consumption, where no child in middle class suburbs may return from a birthday party without a few items in the goody bag.
Christchurch I'm still working out. It may be about belonging, of fitting in, and having space. Flashy-ness isn't prized. It's more about lifestyle, having a comfortable home, enjoying the greenery, and easy access to the countryside and ski-fields. It seems to attract incomers by virtue of how it looks - the flat green expanse of space, where you can enjoy an outdoors lifestyle, rather than its vibrancy as an ideas hub (although practical ideas like software programming fit in rather well - ideas which let you do things). There's a simplicity to life here - gridded streets, easy to drive. You're either on the flat, or in the hills, and nothing in between. Maybe it's about niceness rather than greatness. Nice car, house, boat, sport on Saturdays and space to shop, but not to show off. Ease, comfort, enjoyment.
Dunedin also seems not to have money as it's currency. My impression (never having lived there) is that Dunedin has something you can belong to, more of a community feel. There's a badge of pride to have survived the winters, and drunk in the pubs and to not have come from a main centre. To be somewhere where creative people flourish, and people are still down to earth.
Of course within any city there are sub-cultures, and I still think the 8 Tribes of New Zealand is a really good analysis.
Graham says you can't really know a city's ambition unless you live there which may be why I find it hard to get a grip on Dunedin, and why I think he hasn't got London quite right. There's more to London's ambition than being aristocratic. I lived there for 6 years, and I think London is about finding your sub-culture, and discovering who you are, choosing a community to belong to. It's a place to go, find out who you are, experiment with new things and leave.
Success in London isn't necessarily the "It girl" phenomenon, it's more linked into the cultural side of things. It's the sort of city where lots of people read novels on the tube or train, and the Orange prize shortlist can be on prime time TV. Where you go as part of a grand tour, to find the opportunities in your field. The most successful then leave London, having a place outside and just coming in to visit.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)