Urban Vancouver

Dear Richard Florida: You aren't nearly as offensive as I thought

By samanthaorwell on January 18, 2008 - 5:28pm

After constantly bashing Richard Florida in almost anything I write I decided to actually read his books. You can't be a good critic if you don't know what you are criticizing. So I finally borrowed Richard Florida's The Rise of the Creative Class from the library. Buying it is not an option- I don't want to give any money to that hack. It's not like I was devoid of all his writings. I read excerpts, his articles, discussed his ideas through seminars. They always offended me. I think I was introduced to Florida in 2003. A year after he came out with the book and a couple years after he introduced his thesis through articles. So it is a fairly new concept even though it feels old (probably because I've been bashing Florida's thesis for years). I was even informed that it was quite the hot topic in scholarly circles. So I'm glad I feel I have a grasp of the whole field since I've been following it almost since conception.

Anyhow, I haven't even finished the book. In fact, I'm only on Chapter 3. But I have to admit, his thesis isn't as offensive as I thought. I just don't think it's necessarily constructive.

Anybody that follows the "knowledge industry" or "creative industry" will know the writings of Richard Florida. Florida coined and made popular ( a little too popular) the notion of the "Creative Class." Introduced in writings 2001/2002 in The Rise of the Creative Class, the Creative Class is "more than 30 percent of the nation's [U.S.] workforce" and consists of people paid in the knowledge industry. He states the core of the creative industry is in science and engineering, architecture and design, education, arts, music and entertainment. "Creative professionals" are a peripheral ring around the core, but also contribute to the broader industry (i.e. business and finance, law, and health care (2002: 8). All of this matters because in times of globalization, and the requirement to be economically competitive, firms are relocating to where the "talent" is. Florida found instead of firms going to the cheapest place of operation with the cheapest labour, etc., they are instead flocking to the Creative Class.
There are two trends he then contends. The first being that competitive firms are not looking for the cheap reproducible labour, instead they are looking for the highly specialized labour which is only held by a small percentage of the population. The second is that these creative people do not move for jobs, but rather locate for quality of life- the type of quality that induces creativity. Thus firms must relocate in areas of a high concentration of the Creative Class, firms create economic advantages for cities, cities therefore need to create the quality of place that the Creative Class wants if the city wants to attract firms. And that is the circle of life for economic success.

Now why does all of this matter to planners? Assuming Florida is right, planners need to avoid planning the boondocks of the 21st century and strategically plan for the Creative Class paradise of tomorrow. What environment can we plan to attract these people who will, in turn, attract industry for out region? Florida suggests a combination of amenities coupled with urban design elements but also uses indexes, i.e. the Gay Index and the Bohemian Index to measure levels of creativity. Okay, "gay index"? "Bohemian index"? Yeah, Florida really says that. He says creative people are drawn to diversity, vibrancy and excitement and those two indices of the measure of creativity in a city. But it is not as bad as you think. It's not like he made these things up in thin air- his book says how he was working on his concept of creative industries and a PhD student was doing something on gay concentrations and when comparing notes they saw that these maps looked strikingly similar. The whole fufu-ness of the gay index and bohemian index really turned me off, but after reading this coincidental development it isn't nearly as offensive as I thought.

Next to offend was this: "The key difference between the Creative Class and other classes lies in what they are primarily paid to do. Those in the Working Class and the Service Class are primarily paid to execute according to plan, while those in the Creative Class are primarily paid to create and have considerable more autonomy and flexibility than the other two classes to do so (2002: 8). Florida goes on to say that everybody has the potential to be creative, however only a small percentage is "fortunate enough to be paid" for this work. So... here we have an inherent inequality. You are telling me that everybody has the ability to be creative, not just everyone is- and then instead of addressing that inequality you begin talking about how firms need to seek out these concentrations of creativity. In effect, instead of nuturing creativity, which should be inherent in everybody, we are accepting the inequality and transforming our whole planning ideology so firms can attract the few who are fortunate enough to already acquire "creativity". Ok..nevermind... I still find this part of Florida's writings offensive. And then Florida goes on to write books, give expensive seminars and sell ideology through his disgustingly sell-out format of his website (See http://creativeclass.com/). Okay, maybe I'm still offended, but if you take his book word for word it really isn't that different from Marx. [wow... I can't believe I said that... Florida doesn't deserve to be mentioned in the same sentence as Karl Marx].
Get over it.
Alright, back to objective writing.

Marx believed in economic determinsm. The base (economics) determined the superstrucutre (culture). Work and they way you produce determines your class. So when it comes down to it, is Florida not saying the exact same thing? For Marx the proletariat did not own their means of production. Their labour was a commodity. The working class was, and is, depreciated in skill and their labour is sold. For Florida, the Creative Class are distinct because of what they get paid to do. They are paid to be creative and, more often than not, live irregular lifestyles (that are becoming regular), with irregular timetables, working conditions. Florida recognize a new type of production and means of production. Florida is simply writing about a new type of production and its effects/consequences on urban regions. So... why is he getting so much flack for it (especially by people like me?).

I still think he is an outright sellout. His is a business, not a scholar. I think maybe just the idea that people consider him as an authority on "what's good for a city" is offensive. His writings are not constructive either. He states what is going on but does not address constructive ways to ammend social inequality. Do writings count of they are not constructive (on a social justice basis)? I have to admit, I think so. Take them for what they are and not what they don't intend to do. It's okay that he doesn't make it constructive. It doesn't make him a good person nor does it make him a bad one. He makes a business of stating, not helping. Other than that, he's not nearly as offensive as I thought.