|
> For the climate-friendly but less glamorous northern cities like Albany, Worcester, and Pittsburg, a successful marketing campaign could make them the climate-proof cities of the future. Putting aside any of the climate change arguments, suggesting that successful marketing could make Albany a “city of the future” is absurd. I don’t know what you would have to pay me to be willing to live in Albany, ever, let alone during the winter — but it would be a lot. Like, at least $1.5m a year. And even then, I’m going to be taking many bad for the environment flights to NYC or a more desirable western city as often as possible. I abhor the Midwest (although Chicago, Boulder, and Denver are some exceptions), but if I’m going to have to live in a shithole, I’d rather be in Michigan or Minnesota or even Indiana before I would live in Albany. The article also seems to ignore non-coastal western and southern cities that aren’t as deeply impacted by climate change. Yeah, Phoenix and Las Vegas might be fucked, but Denver? Salt Lake City? It says “don’t move west,” but also mentions Seattle, NYC, and Boston and places that need to still concentrate on affordable housing to be attractive — which as a person who has lived in NYC and Seattle, I can tell you housing/rent hasn’t been affordable in NYC compared to the rest of the world in decades and Seattle is getting less and less affordable (I pay more in rent than all but one of my NYC friends and her mortgage is a monthly figure that would make even most New Yorkers choke), housing isn’t affordable because it doesn’t have to be. |
I left for personal reasons, and because I prefer super large cities but man... you're writing off A LOT of people.
Also, Colorado is not the Midwest.