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   [#] 

Comments

Creative Class
During our interview one of our interviewees (who is a urban designer) commented that there is a much greater need for creativity and design in the outer suburbs of Melbourne to produce areas such as Brunswick Street and St Kilda. He proposed that development companies should have a compulsory budget on the design of new subdivisions not only to increase the social aspect but also to allow for more creative cities, which as Florida states will in turn increase the density of these areas. So is this one way in which Melbourne can try to increase density and creative choice in housing?
Alistair  3rd June, 2008 22:43:24  

Glaeser, E. 2004, "Review of Richard Florida’s The Rise of the Creative Class"
I agree with Alistair on this point. Major developers probably have too much power and control over what is built on their large areas of land, which means they can increase their profits by avoiding the optional extra costs that would improve the design and social aspects of a development. It should be compulsory for developers to allow for these costs in all developments; developers help shape society and should therefore be more responsible for creating good living environments within our city.
will  3rd June, 2008 23:00:30  

Glaeser, E. 2004, "Review of Richard Florida’s The Rise of the Creative Class"

In order for cities to grow we do not need elites academics and creatives.
Rather alcohol and Barry White is what really fuels growth.

These academics are required for sustainable growth of these cities. They don't help grotwh rather they attempt curb it so growth occurs in desired areas like activity centres..or not?

Having said this, it doesn't matter how much research and advice is given to governments on curbing growth or dictating where it should occur to ensure a sustainable future, they (govt) will put it where it is easiest and suits them the most.

Look at the new Urban Growth Zone (UGZ) for example, it is inconsistent with Melb 2030 by encouraging growth not in activity centres, it contradicts the states initiative of Urban Development Program by zoning all possible industrial land as residential effectively cutting future supply of industrial land. The UGZ also does not encourage sustainable communities and the provision of infrastructre. the UGZ message is that it will ease affordability pressures how is this so? Getting back to curbing growth, academics are need to ensure it occurs in a sustainable manner however, governments will not always listen to these 'academics.'

I think that different groups within an area accelerate growth look at gentrification. All these gentrafied areas are currently experiencing or have experienced huge growth recently with a wide range of diversity present. eg. those on social housing, upper class close to the city in new apartments and students in cheap rentals. i think a range a people encourages growth.

With that in mind, Bohemianism is great because it allows for differences to be accepted. which in turn creates vibrant and popular areas.

Those who help a city to grow should not be grouped or typed as it is all facets of the community who help cities to grow not just the urban designer who draws up a concept plan for future growth or an architect who draws a building. Everyone contributes to the growth of cities.
Sam Finch  5th June, 2008 13:34:52