Fast Company magazine has selected 30 urban centers that are shaping our future. The list includes creative-class meccas, RD hot spots, even cities so fast theyre scary. It calls them Fast Cities. They are cauldrons of creativity where the …

Still, I think that there is validity in the concept of “fast cities”, and appreciate the development of the idea.

The “Fast Cities” post is a link to a Fast Company article, not Florida and Stolarick’s work — the magazine just used some of Kevin’s statistics. As a popular magazine with a “hip” image, Fast Company doesn’t document their research and maybe it’s not even good research — it’s just another top 30 list with their brand attached. But it’s not Richard and Kevin’s research, they were just mentioned.

On the Gays & Cities interview and its accompanying study. I actually think Richard goes out of his way to say that there’s not a “gays cause prosperity” phenomenon, but that there is a correlation and that a city’s openness does have a causal relationship to both numbers of gays and prosperity. And I think he does a pretty good job of showing that causality.

I have two material problems with the finding as reported. One, there is no way to address the arrow of causality. Two, the factors presented are “ethereal things” to quote the posting. Empiracle work that appeals to supernatural causes is not science. These defects indicate that the quality of scholarship is seriously wanting. I would ask Florida and Stolarick to read Porter and Ghemawat. Ghemawat in his Commitment book does a great job calling out the fallacies that Flordia and Stolarick commit in an easy to read format (causality and necessary and sufficient arguments). The recent piece that Florida has on Gays and City economic prosperity is another example of confounding correlation and causation.