I don’t have any tattoos and I have no plans of ever getting one, but if I were in the market for something to tattoo on my body, this Latin phrase would be a solid contender: Audentes fortuna iuvat. It translates into something along the lines of: Fortune favors the bold. And it’s one of my favorite proverbs.

The supposed meaning behind the phrase is that Fortuna, the Goddess of fortune and luck, was believed to be more likely to help those that took risks, took action, and were generally bold. And what I like about this is that it doesn’t make luck some abstract thing that people either have or don’t. It firmly transforms luck into something that you yourself can create. That is, if you want it.

Earlier this month, venture capitalist Fred Wilson wrote a post on his blog called Get Lucky, where he talks about the research that psychologist Richard Wiseman did on so-called lucky and unlucky people. Wiseman concluded the following:

My research revealed that lucky people generate good fortune via four basic principles. They are skilled at creating and noticing chance opportunities, make lucky decisions by listening to their intuition, create self-fulfilling prophesies via positive expectations, and adopt a resilient attitude that transforms bad luck into good.

Obviously, the common thread between these two ideas is that luck is something that you yourself can control. Lucky is a state of mind. Whether you believe in greater powers or not, people at least as far back as the Roman times identified the benefits of taking action, risk, and of boldness. It creates opportunity. And it creates luck. 

I try and do as much of that as I can.

I was recently asked by a Canadian architecture website called sixty7 Architecture Road to respond to the following: Can the creation of urban destinations transform or hinder a city’s development? It was for a regular Q+A series they do on their website. Here is my response (I was specifically asked about Dundas Square):

The best line I’ve ever heard about public spaces and urban destinations was from Bruce Kuwabara of KPMB Architects. He said that the outside of buildings need to be thought of as the inside walls of the public realm. And I think that’s a really great way of framing this discussion. We often think of buildings inwardly and as self contained objects, but by virtue of their existence we’re creating and framing many other spaces.

With that in mind, I absolutely believe that beautiful and well designed urban destinations–whether public or private–can transform a city and its development patterns. A perfect, but perhaps overused, example of this is the High Line in New York. Not only has it become a destination (“Have you been to the High Line yet?”), it has become an unbelievable city building catalyst. All of a sudden development is happening in, on and around the High Line, where as before developers would have tried to completely ignore it. And so today, the High Line, as an urban destination, is almost being continually reinvented by new development.

To talk specifically about Toronto, I think that downtown needed a “public” space like Dundas Square. The design could have been less unidirectional (towards the Eaton Centre) and the building to the north is repulsive, but it provided a forum along Toronto’s main street in the heart of downtown. I also believe that good urban destinations give areas a sense of identity, which is why I’m somewhat bothered by the loss of the square at Yonge & Eglinton. Sure it was bad, but we could have made it better. It is the heart of midtown in my mind.

So not only do urban destinations have the ability to transform, I would argue that they are essential to any great global city. Whether it’s the High Line in New York, the Spanish Steps in Rome, the old Love Park in Philadelphia, or Trafalgar Square in London, these spaces are integral to those city’s brands and identities. What do ours say about Toronto?

For the full Q+A, click here.

When most people think of brands, I suspect that they think of companies, products and services. But what about the brand of your city? As cities continue to compete for talent in the global economy, brand is becoming a hugely important differentiator.

I just stumbled upon the Anholt-GfK City Brands Index and here’s their 2013 ranking:

1. London
2. Sydney
3. Paris
4. New York
5. Rome
6. Washington D.C.
7. Los Angeles
8. Toronto
9. Vienna
10. Melbourne

The study looks at 6 key dimensions: presence, place, pre-requisites, people, pulse and potential.

What do you think of the above list?

Here’s a bit more information on how the index was prepared:

"The Anholt-GfK Roper City Brands Index measures the image of 50 cities based on more than 50 questions related to perceptions of their Presence, Place, Pre-requisite, People, Pulse and Potential.  For the 2013 study, a total of 5,144 interviews were conducted in Australia, Brazil, China, France, Germany, India, Russia, South Korea, the United Kingdom and the United States.  Adults age 18 or over who are online are interviewed in each country.  Using the most up-to-date online population parameters, the achieved sample in each country has been weighted to reflect key demographic characteristics including age, gender, and education of the online population in that country.  Fieldwork was conducted from May 8th to May 23rd, 2013."