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   [#] 

Comments

Florida, R. 2005 "Cities and the Creative Class"
In response to the first question, no I do not think flourishing cities and the creative class are mutually exclusive. It is the entrepeneurs, the daring and the talented that propell most cities into the global stadium. If we refer back to Logan & Molotch (2007) "The city as a growth machine" we see many examples of how the loss of ideas and creativity (that is to contribute to the city itself) ultimately results in that cities decline. Once a city (like manchester or i think it was christmas island or an ancient indian city) has reached a point where efficiency in the production of the same goods are met, the city will ultimately decline as nothing new will propel the city or result in growth..So overall the flourishing cities/growing cities are a result of the creative and innovative individuals in them that help them grow and prosper - take the scientists out of a science lab and what do you get???

As i previously mentioned a city is lively, vibrant and strong due to the people that are in it, the people who make it the way it is. In relaiton to Melbourne, you take out your entrepeneurs, your artists and elites and im pretty sure melbourne will turn into a slummy manufacturing wasteland.

Yes the creative class can be attracted to a city. The creative class has the ability to make a city/area prosper but if you limit them or do not provide them with the facilities or services they too will decline. With the scientists in a science lab, you take away their food they will die..or you take away their bunsen burners or test tubes im pretty sure it will limit their progress.

p.s Hard questions nicole, i spent ages trying to think of an aswer, too bad no one else is gonna comment :s
LONGGGGG  1st June, 2008 18:42:13  

Florida, R. 2005 "Cities and the Creative Class"
Nice one Long!

Hmmm, I think you have exposed my badly worded question...I apologise.

I agree that, especially in Melbourne's case, were it not for a healthy population of this so-called creative class, we would have a very different city on our hands, and most likely one not so endearing to those outside of it.

Interesting experiment there you suggest re taking about props of the science lab!


nf  3rd June, 2008 12:49:57  

Cities and Creative Class
Hey..I'm surprised to read that the hay population is one determination of a creative city. Interesting.
In relation to the third question, I think the government should provide more affordable housing. So that, everybody, i mean anybody from different races or culture or classes can afford it. It will derive more assimilation and mixed culture. But the education and security should be maintained in order to prevent slum areas.
Sun`  10th June, 2008 11:14:32