I read this article in the New York Times today about different cities' success stories in luring the young (24-35) class to their regions. The article cited Atlanta, Portland, Memphis, and Las Vegas at the top of the list.

Now, being a early twenty-something-soon-to-be-college-grad moving back to the Fresno area in a few weeks (woohoo!), I know that my choice was based on 1) the significant other and 2) a wonderful job awaiting me. And I suppose, I just love the Valley. Abnormally. So I am not a good case study by any means. But what would it take for my friends of other professions to consider moving to Fresno? Sure, we're low on the coolness scale (compared with other cities in California), but we're in the middle of everything! So I polled a few of my friends and here's the results:

Future Marine/Ecophysiology Biologist: "Well, considering Fresno doesn't have an ocean, and it would take thousands of years for global climate change to raise ocean levels to swallow everything west of it...I'm thinking no."

Future Civil Engineer: "Are you kidding me? It's not a very outdoorsy place. No hiking, no rock climbing. People aren't very environmentally conscious. Lots of freeways, little scenic beauty."

Future City Planner/Sustainable Developer: "It's not pretty. [I told her that's our job to make it pretty. But I guess I have more of a vested interest in Fresno.]"

Future Ecotourism Guide: "Really? What makes it different than any other city?"

Future Mechanical Engineer (moving to the area in a few weeks): "Its a good place to raise your kids. Simple kind of life. Not so easy to bike around though. [He is married]"

Future Optometrist: "I don't want to live in Fresno. Thats the city. I like the country. The small-town life."

Future English Teacher: "I really don't see why. If I'm not going to move to a really exciting or different place, I might as well move close to my family."

I think I might continue my survey to a wider range of professions, including business and design. This survey is in no way statistically based. In fact, its very biased.

Back to the article in the Times, they discussed that cities need to find a niche for what the young people in their city are looking for. In Portland's case, it was bike trails. In Las Vegas, I'm sure its shopping and a party atmosphere. Do our young people really want to live in a city which is content to be keeping up with our status-quo suburbia counterparts? In San Diego, it seems they have the best of both worlds: you can go to Mission Valley for your chain-store kick (Crate and Barrel...Dave and Busters.. ...IKEA!!), or you can thrive in the cool character of the restaurants and shops of Old Town, Downtown, Gas Lamp, Shelter Island, Coronado, etc....

And I think for Fresno, a city similar to that is realistic. But it took San Diego so much time and effort and money to build up those cool areas, and now they are even redeveloping some of the more sprawl-like areas (near San Diego State). Can we learn from San Diego's mistakes? I certainly hope so.

Here's that article: (http://www.planetizen.com/node/22014).