I missed: Boho Britain

But as I said just a few posts ago I happen to agree with the major premise of this conference .

But does anyone truly believe that government, the state, the community-at-large, can foster an environment of "eccentric and creative people"? (Obviously the "tolerance" component is partly a matter of application of laws which require equal protection, non-descrimination etc etc. and there I think government has a prime role.) But how do you mandate "eccentricity and creativity"? The very idea is alternatively humorous and terrifying.

UPDATE: Brian's Culture Blog seems to agree.

Orange Cone looks at the issue from yet another perspective: Manufactured Bohemia.

Comments

[jack tindall]

I agree with both you and Professor Florida. However he is talking about Brittain. In the USA we have 400 years of slavery and racism that is difficult to grasp from an urban planning standpoint.

[Brian Miller]

I see your point, David. But, I would argue that governments can proactively favor creativity through zoning regulations. For example, discouraging large, blank boxes in favor of smaller blocks; architectural and development standards that limit soul-deadening design, etc. The government then sets a stage for quirkier development that may in fact encourage creativity. But, you are right that the government can only "encourage" such creativity-it can't do it itself.

[Andrew Spicer]

Building off Brian's note, aren't many governments presently working hard to actively promote "shopping malls and convention centres"? One point is that that may be a wasted effort if diversity of human capital is a more important factor in development. Florida's message is far from irrelevant in situations where (for example) there is a debate about razing a weird ecclectic block to build one of those mall or convention centre projects that some governments favour.

There are also steps that governments can take to make their community more attractive to the creative types, and therefore make it easier for local companies to hire them. Investing in arts & culture -- and that doesn't have to be of the big box variety -- can be one way. You don't mandate "eccentricity and creativity", but eccentric and creative people are mobile. They can leave your town and move to another. Opportunity is a major reason for why they move, but quality of life and tolerance are also factors.

[David Sucher]

And my point is to make your town nice for yourself, for your exisiting citizens, not as a gimmick to attract others.

Others may very well be attracted; but that should be a consequence not a goal. At least that's how I see it.

[clew]

Things governments do can change the probability of existing citizens becoming cultural creatives (I loathe that phrase), or leaving for elsewhere, or staying without ambition. Little and various schools, or big dangerous ones? Private neighborhoods or P-Patches? Heed the pro-monorail votes, or sulk?

[TM Lutas]

Actually, you can make an argument that blank boxes, structured correctly can foster creativity. After all, that's what most lofts were, unstructured, open, originally industrial space that was cheap.

I think that creativity and weirdness will crop up under any building regime. What kills creativity is the reaction to it. No, you can't paint that particular shade, no you can't make an unconventional living space in an industrial zone. It's zoning and land use regulation that are the creative killers.

[David Sucher]

I don't see that lofts promote creativity or that zoning etc hinders it.

As to the latter, one could as easily say that grammar hinders free and accurate expression. Or that a very confining form -- the sonnet, for instance -- prevents great literature.

[JRoth]

I think Andrew captures Florida's key point, which is that, in the US at least, efforts to "improve" cities (whether directed towards current or potential residents) have focused on big projects: stadia, convention centers, big box stores in old neighborhoods (built suburb-style), superhighways, etc., but that such efforts would be more effectively directed towards small-scale, free-form projects that enable, reward, foment creativity/diversity.

The argument for destroying the old/interesting/funky in cities has always been an economic & civic one: tearing down this old warehouse will make the city better and more prosperous. Florida's thesis is that this is 180 degrees wrong, and that that warehouse, occupied by artists, will help the city more than a block of suburban anonymity would.

I think that that part of his argument is sound, and important to be said. A lot of the rest of his argument seems an awful lot like saying that artists, gays, and minorities are great for the city, because they give yuppies something to gawk at and feel sophisticated about living near. And it's taking that view - mistaking the goal for the side benefit - that I think you, David, rightly question. If a policy makes a neighborhood safer and yet still friendly to a funky and diverse population, that's a good on its own, without worrying about how "knowledge workers" (another bile-rising term) might feel about it.

[Steven B. Cherry]

I believe the community at-large can foster or attract both eccentricity and creativity.

The eccentricitia of Ypsilanti, Mi (pop 22k):

Seat of the Revolution

Mark Maynard

The Bunker

Ypsi~Dixit

Ypsi Rocks

Dreamland Theater

[Rich]

Another question to ask in relation to the push for Boho Paradises is who is benefiting and who is being hurt. Cities like Boston, SF, Seattle, London, etc. are great for creativity. And that creativity is great for producing innovative new products. And those innovative new products produce wealth.

At the same time, creative cities are places that people want to live. More demand for the city means higher prices for housing.

All of this can be great if you are a home owner who has a PhD in Microbiology. But the vast majority of people are not in that situation. They find it harder to afford living in the city. They find that the company they work for cannot afford to locate in their city anymore.

I am not saying that creative cities should change. But I think there should be a bit of caution against every city trying to be a haven for the creative class.

I know that competition is not a zero sum game in all situations. But just because more cities are bohemian does not mean that there will be more people able to produce the things that generate vast wealth. I think a great example of this is Memphis. A significant employer in Memphis is FedEx. If Memphis succeeds in being a more attractive city to the creative class, I think it will not be long until FedEx decides that a cheaper location would be a better base for their operations.

So it is not that the state is or is not good at acheiving the goal of becoming more bohemian. The question is still should they want to be bohemian.

[Bill Seitz]

I increasingly think that Bigness is inherently the enemy of freedom and thus creativity.

I think city politicians, and many of their constituents, are addicted to Big projects because they qualify as "doing something".

I think a better process of encouraging the gathering of creative people is to reduce the bureaucracy that makes it painful for small action. It should be incredibly easy to open a small cafe or bookstore *or school*, or become a part-time taxi driver with your own car, etc...

[joe newman]

i think florida makes a great point. it's the diversity of people and ideas that make a neighborhood great (and really this discussion must take place at the neighborhood level because when we romanticize about the great cities, what we're really talking about are their neighborhoods.) sure, we left our hearts in san francisco but it's the haight and the castro we adore. that's why the so-called great revitalization of america's downtowns is mostly a sham. it is gentrification and gentrification is the enemy of diversity. do you prefer georgetown or adams morgan? to this end, public policy and zoning CAN nurture creativity by stifling gentrification. provide property tax breaks for longtime residents, support affordable in-fill housing, allow granny-flats and rental subsidies for artists. otherwise, florida's prediction will come true, the city will die, suffocating on its own blandness

[David Sucher]

"to this end, public policy and zoning CAN nurture creativity by stifling gentrification. provide property tax breaks for longtime residents, support affordable in-fill housing, allow granny-flats and rental subsidies for artists."

Well I guess that's we have horseraces. :)

I cannot fathom how "stifling gentrification" can even remotely nurture creativity. the assumption, i gather, is that discouraging social change and providing cheap space (even slummy space) is good for allowing poor starving artists.

uh, i wouldn't be too concerned about artists. if they are really creative they will find cheap space somewhere, such as in the vast number of declining small towns of the mid-west. in fact, if you want to talk about creative social engineering, encourage artists to leave big cities for the small declining ones.

the policies suggested may (or may not) be good ideas; all i am saying is that we should do them for their own purpose not because in some vague and indirect way they can be claimed to promote creativity.

[praktike]

This sounds callous, but I think artists can be kind of "used" to bootstrap neighborhood development. Near me there's a rough area called Garfield which has implemented a series of programs to attract artists--foundation-subsidized rents, monthly events, etc.

Frankly, it's working. The place is livening up, developers are coming in to fix up old rowhouses, etc.

[clew]

But, David, there are two reasons the artists can't move to small declining towns. The first is that artists almost all need day jobs, & the declining towns usually don't have enough to support their existing population. The second is that a lot of arts depend on collaboration, so artists - like biochemists - want to be where other artists are, and they all need day jobs.

If anything, bohemians are already more willing to move than most people. Maybe they don't cause the health of cities; maybe they just move to a resurgent town early in its cycle, like a flock of swallows in spring.

Boutique shopping, etc., marks a grackle class that follows the swallows and preens itself and makes too much noise.

[David Sucher]

Hey, I'm a skier. I'd like a subsidy, too. Skiing is a spiritual quest; gimme a new pair of skis so I can have a more evolved transcendental experience. You think I am joking? Then you don't ski. A lot of this stuff is just special pleading to suck off the public teat.

I have no sympathy for "artists" just as I have little sympathy for people who loudly proclaim their religiosity. Those are private concerns and matters. Obviously, they should be free to practice their respective faiths but I simply can't quite grasp why either group believes it deserves any special subsidy.

But I do like your "...a grackle class that follows the swallows and preens itself and makes too much noise." Nicely done.

[clew]

Well, consumer access to skiing, alpine anyway, does require better road maintenance than other difficult roads get - seems to me the state already spends a bit extra so that you can go amuse yourself in your chosen way. Which is probably economically effective for the state, as spendy professionals are slightly more willing to work here because of the skiing. I would be less conscious of this if I didn't have a relative on a washout road. She won't mind until someone needs a winter heli-ambulance.

There are several classes of "artist"; are we conflating them? Most non-opera-artists of my acquaintance aren't subsidized, so they need a combination of cheap digs and steady work and they make more use of the libraries and junk-reuse facilities than most citizens. Government can also mediate competition for busking spots, or hire them to work with kids, or unlock the freezing barns at Sand Point.

Does Florida recommend direct subsidies of artists? I had optimistically assumed that he was for the Seattle-normal tactics of allowing buskers and tiny cart businesses, keeping the libraries sort of open, arguing every year about nakedness at the Solstice Parade; not bulldozing all cheap neighborhoods to put in malls, not making the Seattle Center a professional theme park. I've lived in a couple of cities that had exactly the opposite tactics, and they certainly were more boring at the small scale - less art, more "Art", because it didn't count until it was so expensive it needed subsidies.