The reading is on Glaesers analysis on Florida’s work The rise of the creative class. Essentially Florida’s work focuses on how creativity can result in the growth and development of the city. He highlights that creativity is growing and firms are displaying and showcasing themselves as creative to attract the creative. The purpose of this as highlighted by Glaeser is that for cities to grow and blossom, they need to have the creative in them, they are “the wave of the future”.

Glaeser spends the first section of his analysis on Floridas book analyzing its worth and value. His focal point was on Florida’s argument that there is “a difference between the human capital theory of city growth and the creative capital theory of city growth”.

Glaser points out in Florida that in order for a city to succeed the, the city itself needs to provide for its residents – more so with lifestyle and consumption, perhaps making it more enjoyable and social. A happier city will result in more happy residents. Glaeser criticizes Florida’s claim that creative people can only be the “bohemian types” who likes “funky, socially free areas with cool downtowns and lots of density” Florida (2004) (cited in Glaeser). This sort of thinking lets us think for a minute, is it ironic to assume that the creative can be stereotypically portrayed and described as how Florida (2004) has mentioned? Glaeser asserts that the ‘creative’ can not be categorized as how Florida (2004) has mentioned them, and asserts that the creative can vary, even be the types that likes “big suburban lots with easy commutes…”

The entire analysis on Florida’s work and Glaesers’ seems to have a focal point on who the creative types are? The assumed ‘creatives’ and whether which group constitutes more to growth as opposed to other groups. One interesting group of people(s) mentioned within the analysis are ‘bohemian types’ who seem to make up a small portion of the overall population (a study Glaeser conducted himself) but seem to have a significant impact on growth. As the reading continued, it was quite confusing to understand this concept of Bohemians and Bohemianism, so a definition from wikipedia for the term is as follows:

The term bohemian, of French origin, was first used in the English language in the nineteenth century[1] to describe the untraditional lifestyles of marginalized and impoverished artists, writers, musicians, and actors in major European cities. Bohemians were associated with unorthodox or antiestablishment political or social viewpoints, which were often expressed through non-marital sexual relations, frugality, and/or "voluntary poverty". The term bohemian, of French origin, was first used in the English language in the nineteenth century[1] to describe the untraditional lifestyles of marginalized and impoverished artists, writers, musicians, and actors in major European cities. Bohemians were associated with unorthodox or antiestablishment political or social viewpoints, which were often expressed through non-marital sexual relations, frugality, and/or "voluntary poverty".

A more modern term in which we can relate to these people as described within The American College Dictionary as "a person with artistic or intellectual tendencies, who lives and acts with no regard for conventional rules of behavior."

What we need to distinguish is the opposing views between Florida and Glaeser, Glaesers belief is that human capital (that is creative human capital) generates the growth within the city as opposed to Florida’s argument that a creative capital generates the growth (to have a creative capital, not only do we need the creative people, we need the contents of the city to promote creative people and activities).

The reading goes on to examine 3 other variables and see if they constitute to the growth of a city, the other 3 are:
Local Worker variable - (College/tertiary educated within the city core)
Patent citation per capita variable (A patent is a set of exclusive rights granted by a state to an inventor or his assignee for a fixed period of time in exchange for a disclosure of an invention (wikipedia, 2008))
Gay variable – (Gay couples within the city)?
Bohemian variable – (refer to previous definition on bohemian/bohemianism)

The results showed that:
teritary educated – contributing factor to growth
patent per capita – very small and insignicant factor to growth
gay – detrimental to growth
bohemianism – small variable, but has a major impact on growth

The entire reading and analysis parallels much to Logan & Molotch (2007) work on the City as a growth machine, in a sense that so called ‘bohemianism’ stimulates growth to a city through creative and artistic behavior, as also mentioned in (Logan & Molotch (2007)) where creativity is needed to stimulate growth as ideas sprout issues and unfortunately having issues results in further growth and production, though creativity in a city can also be positive – result in more ideas and ideas will result in more growth.

Overall the two academics may have opposing views on what makes a city grow, but fundamentally both agree that creativity will in no doubt result in the growth and development of a city.

Questions to consider:

• Do you agree that in order for a city to grow, we need the elites, academics and ‘creatives’ to fuel the growth?
• Do you think that only certain groups of people within a city will result in growth?
• Do you believe in Bohemianism
• Should the people who contribute to growth be stereotyped and categorized, and are there anomalies out there, those who contribute to a cities growth but not necessarily be seen as an academic/tertiary educated or a creative person?

Reference

Glaeser, E. 2004, Book Review of Richard Florida's "The Rise of the Creative Class", Harvard Institute of Economic Research, online

12. City Futures 31st May, 2008 22:23:50   [#] [3 comments] 

Richard Florida is a social scientist-cum-social entrepreneur, having built something of a consulting empire following the ‘success’ of his research into the relationship between cities and the people he has coined the creative class. (Visit creativeclass.com and you’ll soon get the drift.) Florida’s research is clearly targeted beyond a purely academic audience, and his series of non-fiction titles are no strangers to best-seller lists in his native US. In the book Cities and the Creative Class (Florida 2005), he is explicit in his intent to “spur wider commentary and debate on the critical functions of cities and regions in 21st century capitalism” (p.28). Florida is influenced by the ideas of several authors we have become familiar with through the readings of this course and others; he pays homage to writers such as Jane Jacobs and Edward Klaesar, as well as Robert Putnam, the man credited with the theory of social capital.

This particular reading is the scene-setting title chapter from Cities and the Creative Class, where Florida works to establish his key concepts in the mind of the reader. He contests that, in recent history, the imagining of what drives the success of cities has come full circle. For the most part of the twentieth century, Florida explains, it was people and their activity that were seen to foster “difference, creativity and innovation” (p.27). In its latter decades, growth and development were thought to be driven by “companies, firms and industries” (p.27). Now, building on the rise of theory around human capital, academic thought is again rallied behind the idea that “creative people are the driving force in regional economic growth” (p.34). For Florida, it is these people that comprise the creative class, whose membership he defines as those whose primary work function is “create meaningful new forms” (p.34). Principally, this includes disciplines such as science, engineering, design, academia, literature and the arts. Secondarily, it includes “knowledge-intensive industries” (p.34) such as finance, IT, legal and healthcare.

Florida shapes his argument around three main ideas - firstly, that geography is “not dead” (p.28). Interestingly, he relates the popular modern notion of communication technology rendering physical relationships obsolete with the predictions of experts at the turn of the nineteenth century who claimed “technologies from telegraph and the telephone to the automobile and the airplane would essentially kill off the cities” (p.28). Florida firmly grounds himself in the camp of thought that values place rather than space as the key ingredient of a flourishing city, and argues it is such places that serve as “incubators of creativity, innovation, and new industries” (p.29)

Secondly, Florida addresses the question: why do creative people cluster in certain places? He finds that, crucially, creative class-types are making career decisions and/or locational choice based on a combination of “economic and lifestyle considerations”, and are drawn to places that are “inclusive and diverse” (p.33). This is equating to an abandonment of cities built around traditional ideals of mainstream urban provisions – of freeways, malls and sports stadiums – in favour of cities that offer “high-quality experiences” and the opportunity to “validate their identities as creative people” (p.34).

Thirdly, Florida claims that such places attracting the creative class can be identified as those that concurrently offer the 3 T’s [sic] of “technology, talent and tolerance” (p.37). Tolerance is defined as an openness to individuals and communities of all walks of life, which tacitly reduces barriers to entry (see p.40); talent as persons holding a bachelor degree or higher; and technology in terms of “both innovation and high technology concentrations in a region” (p.37). Florida points to past research relating to the Gay and Bohemian Index (p.40-42) as illustrating this point of the Three T’s.

Overall, the determined style of this chapter could be interpreted as setting the reader up for a right pounding of the gospel according to Florida. However, it serves as a very useful synthesis of many of the themes we have covered to date – such as economic growth, innovation, commerce, competition – that are especially particular to cities. Florida’s theories are definitely reflected (albeit incidentally) in the assumptions of our general discussions to date, and his research and insights are difficult to ignore as we strive for the continuous improvement of our cities.

Points for discussion: (go on, last ones!)

• Do you agree with Florida’s conclusions that flourishing cities and the creative class are mutually exclusive? (Or alternatively, do you think Florida is stroking his own ego, ‘finding’ social classifications to make himself feel better?)
• How do you see Florida’s theories relating to Melbourne?
• Can the creative class be attracted to a city (ie by planning) or is it an intrinsically organic process? How/why?

Florida, R. 2005 "Cities and the Creative Class", Cities and the Creative Class, Routledge, New York

12. City Futures 30th May, 2008 01:06:18   [#] [3 comments] 

Docklands is a prime piece of real estate comprised of 200 hectares with water access and directly adjacent to a major city centre. The development was supposed to contain "principles of public access, environmental sustainability, mixed use, height controls to protect amenity, heritage protection, public artworks, waterfront promenades, public open space, pedestrian/cycle networks and public transport" Yet, ten years after the Docklands conception Dovey is asking what went wrong? In the beginning the Docklands were "declared to be both market driven and design driven" however, through taking a closer look at what actually eventuated in the development process, Dovey uncovers some serious deviations from the initial strategy.

The hype and strategy surrounding the docklands anticipated huge international investment as being the biggest driver of development, but due to collapse or rejection of these international players the selected developers for "five of the six precincts are Melbourne-based" and nearly all projects are Australian owned and controlled. As Dovey says, initially the docklands hype assumed "large amounts of global investment with no public cost under the condition that the state largely surrender design control. The result has been medium amounts of local investment at substantial public cost coupled with loss of control"

From the outset the Docklands was intended to have little or no financial impact on the public purse, yet one of the most questionable deviation is the public spending on operational costs, subsidies and major infrastructure projects. State funded investments include Telstra Dome, bridge extensions of Collins, Bourke and Latrobe, a new tram way, Wurundjery Way, Grimes Bridge, Web Bridge, broadband digital network, subsidies to attract the technology park and film studio and operational costs for the Dockland Authority.

The planning and urban design phase that followed is described by Dovey to be a bit of a compromised and fluid process. With the Docklands termed 'millennium development' the government was understandably getting worried with minimal development occurring, and this is one angle where developers pushed and manipulated the circumstance for public investment. Developers were willing to provide infrastructure in their own precincts where it could be controlled, but were less inclined to pitch in funds for the overall core infrastructure.
The Precincts are all under individual developer control, and it is criticised that the "planing and design process was essentially being subcontracted to developers". By this Dovey means the overall conception and integration of the Docklands was relatively piecemeal and laden with uncertainty. While the planning scheme allowed for developers and designers to think outside the box, this same freedom for all precincts made it especially difficult to calculate risk- it is hard to know how the adjoining precinct will add or subtract value if you don't know what they are doing.

This freedom to move actually resulted in a contradiction of standards and in some cases disregarded the planing scheme. On the north side a row of 80 metre towers dominate the skyline and place the waterfront in perpetual shade, where were height controls in this instance? Yet in another precinct, Waterfront City, this is not the case.

With the individual precincts drawing attention away from an integrated approach, Dovey is critical of the failure to develop the harbour as a major centrepiece. Wharves and warehouses have the possibility to add cultural and heritage value, yet with the focus being on the precinct there was no "imperative to preserve it" Additionally the finger pier is a key to integrated conceptual thinking creating a public focus point, but with precincts on all sides this focus is somewhat lost.

Ultimately, Dovey is of the opinion that the 'market driven' approach was not necessarily the way to go because as we can see, it did not deliver the benefits it was supposed to. He suggests that perhaps a more realistic angle would have been to realise that public investment was required over that 10 years. Flowing from this, more control could have been taken, not only to create a more imaginative and integrated place, but one that promoted private investment as well.

Questions

• With such a major addition to the city, why would the Government initially be reluctant to procure funds for infrastructure and development?
• How did the planning system fail to produce the desired outcomes of connection, integration and public access? What could have been done better?
• From personal experience (ie visiting the Docklands), and a design perspective what are the positive and negative elements of the area, what would you change if you could?

Reference:

Dovey K. 2005, "Hype and Hope" in Fluid City: Transforming Melbourne's Urban Waterfront, UNSW Press, Sydney, Ch 10 (9p)

12. City Futures 26th May, 2008 10:09:53   [#] [8 comments] 

Phillip Goad's work is a study of the effect of the Olympic games on the urban form of the two cities that hosted them, Melbourne in 1956 and Sydney in 2000. These two different Olympics were world apart, and strong contrast can be seen.

The Melbourne Olympics were cobbled together post-war, and mostly utilised existing buildings and facilities in the end due to the failure of organisation and lack of funding. As a result, fortunately much older architecture was not lost. Things were stretched to the extent that shooting was held at Williamstown with the cars in the carpark as seating, rowing was held t Ballarrat, and equestrian events at South Africa due to Australia's draconian quarantine laws.

Most of the few new sporting facilities were located at Olympic Park, and these facilities were placed haphazardly but have served Melbourne well since. An edict by Melbourne City Council in 1954 forced the removal of verandahs from buildings in time for the olympics, and this attempt to modernise has left much fine architecture harmed by it.

Design of one of the few new buildings, the Olympic swimming stadium, was won by a team of young architects in a competition. This building not only kick started their careers, but also was the first major use of experimental architecture in Olympic buildings, ad could be claimed to have started the legacy of more inventive Olympic architecture world-wide.

In Sydney by comparison, one major criticism could be aimed at the architecture. There was no design competitions, but rather the construction of the Olympic buildings was won by competitive tendering to build for the lowest price, in line with the currently dominant practices of economic rationalism. As a result, the buildings are all structurally competent, on budget, and house corporate seating arrangements and TV coverage well, but there is little of architectural interest or importance.

Further contrasts can be drawn with the artwork and advertising. In Melbourne, there was no formal art budget, and very little public work was present or created. There was an art exhibition around the same time, but most of the Olympic artwork was decorating retail businesses. Myer's Christmas windows originated at this time and wall art was present elsewhere. Asides from this, there was a huge Olympic torch with a one metre high gas fuelled flame erected over a city street and later removed, and a few very minor works. In contrast, Sydney invested a significant budget into the development of contemporary artworks around the area, and very heavily promoted the event.

For Olympic village accommodation, Melbourne's use of the development of West Heidelberg housing commission estate turned out to be a disaster, as not only was it far from the events but it was far from shops and services and became one of Victoria's worst suburbs in the years after. In Sydney, the Olympic village was built as townhouses suitable to be sold off to the middle class after the event, and these buildings served competently. There are now supporting a rise in denser housing development in the area.

In terms of infrastructure, the Olympics would seem to have been of benefit to both cities, as the sudden need forced infrastructure to be developed that would serve the cities well for following decades. Melbournes trams and trains especially around the MCG were upgraded, and Sydneys Olympic development was made to utilise public transport which will make it operate well into the future, along with other upgrades such as to the airport.

In the conclusion, the Olympics cause a sudden pressure on the city, which is good for forcing new infrastructure projects, but can also be dangerous in the haphazard way the urban form is changed in a race for the event. There are both benefits and losses and it can be very, very different between different olympics at different points in time.

Reference:

Goad, P. 2001, "Competition and Circumstance: Urban Legacies of the Olympics", Debating the City: An Anthology, ed. Barrett, J., Butler-Bowdon, C., Historic Houses Trust of New South Wales, Sydney, ch.11 (21p)

12. City Futures 24th May, 2008 02:43:47   [#] [0 comments] 

In this article the author, Davies, examines what effects the construction of sports stadia has had on local residential property and communities. Her contention is that in the UK, this has the effect of increasing the value of residential property in the surrounding area. This is contrary to views often held by residents in close proximity to proposed sports stadia, who protest on the grounds that during both the construction and operation phases there will be negative impacts such as congestion, pollution and antisocial behaviour, leading to declines in property values.

The context of this piece is academic. It comes from a journal called Area and contains an abstract at the beginning, highlighting the key points. In her introduction, Davies provides a literature review of her subject, which is one of the usual characteristics of writing in an academic context. After introducing the topic the author explains the research methodology used. Two examples are focused on in this article - The Millennium Stadium (in Cardiff) and the City of Manchester Stadium. They have similarities in that they were both constructed recently and built primarily to host major sporting events. The Millennium Stadium for the 1999 Rugby World Cup and the City of Manchester Stadium for the 2002 Commonwealth Games. Davies used a mixed method approach of interviews and a questionairre survey to collect qualitative and quantitative information on the impact of these stadia on the property market in each city.

Having established the methodology Davies then goes on to analyse the results gleaned and reveals that the stadia in each city have generally had a positive impact on the residential property market. However, research also indicated that it was difficult to isolate the impacts of the stadia from other developments in the surrounding area. In the case of Manchester, the opening of the stadium resulted in an average net positive change of 12.5 per cent to property value over and above general house prices in the area. For Cardiff, the stadium was closer to the city centre and the local real estate market was more established, therefore the net postive change to residential property value was 2.92 per cent, so not as much. In addition to the tangible boosts in value sports stadia provides to local property, intangible impacts also exist. This is because the perceptions of place and the perceived desirability of an area can influence property prices. The research revealed that in both cities the stadiums had enhanced the external image of the city and the internal perceptions of the area in the city in which they are located. I think this is a sensible conclusion because if people are proud of the area they live in, they are more likely to invest in their property, which in turn should enhance the desirability of the area.

The author's conclusion is that she has provided some evidence to show that sports stadiums can have a positive influence on residential values in the surrounding area, although she admits the research has limitations. Given the data collected was opinions, the findings may not be so robust. I would say it is a reasonable conclusion to draw, and if one compares the situation to the Telstra Dome in Melbourne which has been the centrepiece for the revival of the Docklands area, similarities are apparent. It makes sense that people generally want to live close to entertainment venues because they increase amenity. This may be different in the case of being a very close neighbour, in which case negative factors such as noise can play a part. This comes back to ideas we discussed in this course about how ideally everyone would like services within walking distance of their homes, just not right next door.

Questions

• Do you agree that there is a correlation between the construction of stadia and a rise in local property prices?
• Are there any other explanations for increased residential value after stadium construction?

Reference:

Davies, L. 2005, "Not in my backyard! Sports stadia location and the property market", Area, 37.3, pp. 268-276

12. City Futures 23rd May, 2008 14:27:52   [#] [6 comments]