The new urban growth ideology of “creative cities”

Abstract

Not all urban theory is useful in promoting “cities for people.” Some such theories in fact serve as an ideological justification for cities for “profit” and reinforce the right to the city of those that already have it. Richard Florida’s (2004, 2005) influential theory of the creative class is an example of the latter that, despite its conceptual and methodological weaknesses, has received an affirmative reception among regional scientists and politicians in North America and Europe. Florida’s theory is perceived as containing very clear theoretical statements: it is perceived as giving appropriate empirical evidence on these theoretical statements; and it is thought to deliver a practical recipe for policy intervention. Particularly on the urban level, Florida’s concept is viewed as a “message of hope” and as guidance for future successful economic development. Basically, Florida has presented a new urban growth theory claiming that we can expect successful economic development in those cities or regions where the members of the “creative class” like to live and where they are concentrating; thus we should make cities and regions attractive particularly for this stratum of people. Florida deals with the specific attraction factors of cities for the members of the creative class and recommends that political decision makers supply a high standard of living and leisure amenities for the creative class, since this group is said to attract further creative activities and is thus of great importance to future regional development (Fritsch and Stutzer, 2007: 15). This theory has been popularized among politicians and social scientists in Germany (Berlin-Institut, 2007) as well as in other European countries, across North America, and beyond. Based on a more comprehensive investigation (Kratke, 2011), this chapter presents a critique of Florida’s theory of the “creative class,” extending the critique offered by Peck (2005). In his earlier analysis,Peck (2005: 740) focused on the urban policy dimension of the new-found cult of urban creativity, emphasizing that the contemporary spread of creativity strategies perfectly works with “the grain of extant neoliberal development agendas, framed around interurban competition, gentrifi cation, middle-class consumption, and place-marketing” (see also Keil, this volume). In this chapter, I extend Peck’s critique by considering the problems within Florida’s concept of class and capitalist development and his correspondingly inadequate recognition of various essential factors of urban economic develop ment. Additionally, I question Florida’s view of cities as “cauldrons of creativity” by suggesting that many cities (particularly global cities) today are better characterized as cauldrons of neoliberal gangs’ actions to ruin the world economy. The rise of what I term the “dealer class” in contemporary capitalism has led to the invention of diverse new weapons of financial mass destruction, which have been deployed quite effectively at the expense of people all over the world. Against this background, the catchy thesis of a “creative age” (Flo rida and Tinagli, 2004) acquires a highly ambiguous, if not blatantly ideological, meaning. The chapter is organized in two parts. First, I criticize Florida’s theory due to its affirmative concept of the creative class and of the current regime of capitalist development. Second, I consider the impact of the so-called “creative industries” on urban economic growth, emphasizing in particular the proliferation of flexibilized labour relations and the extension of gentrification within major cities (on the latter, see also Slater, this volume).