Thought-Factory.net Philosophical Conversations Public Opinion philosophy.com Junk for code
PortElliot2.jpg
'An aphorism, properly stamped and molded, has not been "deciphered" when it has simply been read; rather one has then to begin its interpretation, for which is required an art of interpretation.' -- Nietzsche, 'On the Genealogy of Morals'
RECENT ENTRIES
SEARCH
ARCHIVES
Weblog Links
Library
Fields
Philosophers
Writers
Connections
Magazines
E-Resources
Academics
Other
www.thought-factory.net
'An aphorism, properly stamped and molded, has not been "deciphered" when it has simply been read; rather one has then to begin its interpretation, for which is required an art of interpretation.' -- Nietzsche, 'On the Genealogy of Morals'

creative class + urban growth « Previous | |Next »
September 5, 2009

There is a post on Richard Florida’s The Rise of the Creative Class at Scribbling on Bricks, which is part of Russell Degnan's Civil Pandemonium.

The post by Long Nguyen is a reading based on a E. Glaeser's analysis on Florida’s work. Florida argues that creativity can result in the growth and development of the city. If cities want to succeed they need to think about providing lifestyle, or consumption, advantages to their residents. Glaeser says that:

Florida’s basic thesis is that the economy is transforming, and creativity is to the 21st century what the ability to push a plow was to the 18th century. Creative occupations are growing and firms now orient themselves to attract the creative. Employers now prod their hires onto greater bursts of inspiration. The urban lesson of Florida’s book is that cities that want to succeed must aim at attracting the creative types who are, Florida argues, the wave of the future.large industries have tried to adapt to the rising importance of idea-creation.

Large industries have tried to adapt to the rising importance of idea-creation---the creative industries.

The first of criticism is Florida's reduction of creativity to boheminism:

Florida makes the reasonable argument that as cities hinge on creative people, they need to attract creative people. So far, so good. Then he argues that this means attracting bohemian types who like funky, socially free areas with cool downtowns and lots of density. Wait a minute. Where does that come from? I know a lot of creative people. I’ve studied a lot of creative people. Most of them like what most well-off people like—big suburban lots with easy commutes by automobile and safe streets and good schools and low taxes. After all, there is plenty of evidence linking low taxes, sprawl and safety with growth. Plano, Texas was the most successful skilled city in the country in the 1990s (measured by population growth)—it’s not exactly a Bohemian paradise.

Glaeser's argument is that it 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).

There is a truth content in Florida's claim --eg., the recent rejuvenation of the inner CBD of Melbourne with its laneways, bars and restaurants which developed from the artists, designers (fashion, web), writers etc who had moved into the older buildings with their cheap rents. They created a particular place that was valued for the diversity of its inner city urban life in opposition to the windswept streets of the commercial district. It's a good example of Florida's thesis.

| Posted by Gary Sauer-Thompson at 9:27 AM |