Urban guru Richard FloridaThe beginning of 2010 has not been nice to Richard Florida. Starting with an article in The American Prospect by Alec MacGillis earlier this month titled "The Ruse of the Creative Class", the web's urban commentators have been quick to jump on the Florida-bashing bandwagon. Following The American Prospect piece was an elaboration of Florida's flaws by Willy Staley for Next American City. Staley discusses how MacGillis's piece reminds him of The Simpsons episode where the fictional city of Springfield is sold on building a new monorail system by a swindler who then proceeds to skip town stealing the profits. In Staley's mind, Richard Florida is the high-paid swindler who fooled real cities and towns to bank on luring the 'Creative Class' (essentially a post-modern version of 'The Organization Man').
It is hard to imagine anyone paying attention to urban economics during the past decade and not recognizing the name Richard Florida. Florida, famous for his 2002 tome The Rise of the Creative Class, poses the thesis that for cities to be competitive in the 21st Century, they should possess the 'three Ts' of technology, talent and tolerance. His ideas for urban success center around the notion that places ought to focus on attracting knowledge workers (i.e. the 'Creative Class') by catering to their bohemian tastes.
Since garnering fame for his seminal book, Florida has toured the U.S. (and world) promoting his ideas. In the The American Prospect piece, MacGillis takes aim at Florida in what I consider to be an ad hominem attack by questioning the amount of money he earned through paid speaking and consulting gigs. Furthermore, MacGillis implies that Florida is a hypocrite because of a March 2009 article in The Atlantic where he says that some places are beyond recovery.
Staley for the most part agrees with MacGillis's characterization of Florida as a smooth-talking yet hollow evangelist. Joshua Leon, also for Next American City, jumps into the ring for round 3 and delivers a further blow to Florida by poking a hole in his argument for greater geographic mobility. Leon is correct in pointing out that a more mobile workforce is not necessarily good for fostering a sense of local community, nor do many people have the means to just pick up and move to another city where there might be better opportunities. I have made the same point before in regards to Florida's flawed notion of 'city as commodity'.
Yet, even as I have been critical of Richard Florida myself, I do think that his work is not without merit. On the contrary, Florida is very much an urbanist of his time. When I first read The Rise of the Creative Class I could not help but keep thinking back to the place where I grew up: Silicon Valley. Indeed, Florida references Silicon Valley and the greater San Francisco Bay Area quite a bit in his book and dedicates many pages discussing the rise in technological prominence of the region. He cites the Bay's culture of 'openness and tolerance' as one of the primary draws for ambitious entrepreneurs looking to explore new ideas.
Florida made this observation at a time when Silicon Valley had just finished going through the 'dot-com boom' of the late 1990's. And to be sure, it was the Creative Class that was in large part responsible for making the region an economic success story. It is no wonder that other cities and regions (especially ones in post-industrial decline) were quick to embrace Florida's ideas to help attract the much coveted 'creatives'.
Fast-forward to today - nearly 10 years later and in the midst in one of the worst recessions in a generation and we can see why Richard Florida is taking a beating now. The Silicon Valley ethos did not magically replicate itself all over the U.S. transforming every city with economic problems into a bustling technology hub. Furthermore, even the places held as information age paradigms have seen their fair share of suffering and may still face more trouble in the days ahead.
While artist districts, independently owned coffee shops and organic farmers markets are nice additions to any city, they are not nearly as important in attracting workers as the one thing that has brought people to cities for centuries: economic opportunity. One case in point is myself. After the opportunity for new architecture work shriveled up in the U.S. early last year, I hopped on a plane to Beijing. China is certainly not renown for its 'openness and tolerance' but they are building a lot of new buildings in their cities at the moment - and that is exactly why I am here. Strangely enough, as China has improved its economic situation in recent years, so have the creative industries begun to germinate.
The things Florida has been preaching are not 'magic bullets' for economic success. Rather, opportunity, as always, will come first and the amenities that are desired by the Creative Class will follow - it doesn't matter if it is the U.S.A. or China - human nature begs for opportunities that can improve life first.
It is hard to imagine anyone paying attention to urban economics during the past decade and not recognizing the name Richard Florida. Florida, famous for his 2002 tome The Rise of the Creative Class, poses the thesis that for cities to be competitive in the 21st Century, they should possess the 'three Ts' of technology, talent and tolerance. His ideas for urban success center around the notion that places ought to focus on attracting knowledge workers (i.e. the 'Creative Class') by catering to their bohemian tastes.
Since garnering fame for his seminal book, Florida has toured the U.S. (and world) promoting his ideas. In the The American Prospect piece, MacGillis takes aim at Florida in what I consider to be an ad hominem attack by questioning the amount of money he earned through paid speaking and consulting gigs. Furthermore, MacGillis implies that Florida is a hypocrite because of a March 2009 article in The Atlantic where he says that some places are beyond recovery.
Staley for the most part agrees with MacGillis's characterization of Florida as a smooth-talking yet hollow evangelist. Joshua Leon, also for Next American City, jumps into the ring for round 3 and delivers a further blow to Florida by poking a hole in his argument for greater geographic mobility. Leon is correct in pointing out that a more mobile workforce is not necessarily good for fostering a sense of local community, nor do many people have the means to just pick up and move to another city where there might be better opportunities. I have made the same point before in regards to Florida's flawed notion of 'city as commodity'.
Yet, even as I have been critical of Richard Florida myself, I do think that his work is not without merit. On the contrary, Florida is very much an urbanist of his time. When I first read The Rise of the Creative Class I could not help but keep thinking back to the place where I grew up: Silicon Valley. Indeed, Florida references Silicon Valley and the greater San Francisco Bay Area quite a bit in his book and dedicates many pages discussing the rise in technological prominence of the region. He cites the Bay's culture of 'openness and tolerance' as one of the primary draws for ambitious entrepreneurs looking to explore new ideas.
Florida made this observation at a time when Silicon Valley had just finished going through the 'dot-com boom' of the late 1990's. And to be sure, it was the Creative Class that was in large part responsible for making the region an economic success story. It is no wonder that other cities and regions (especially ones in post-industrial decline) were quick to embrace Florida's ideas to help attract the much coveted 'creatives'.
Fast-forward to today - nearly 10 years later and in the midst in one of the worst recessions in a generation and we can see why Richard Florida is taking a beating now. The Silicon Valley ethos did not magically replicate itself all over the U.S. transforming every city with economic problems into a bustling technology hub. Furthermore, even the places held as information age paradigms have seen their fair share of suffering and may still face more trouble in the days ahead.
While artist districts, independently owned coffee shops and organic farmers markets are nice additions to any city, they are not nearly as important in attracting workers as the one thing that has brought people to cities for centuries: economic opportunity. One case in point is myself. After the opportunity for new architecture work shriveled up in the U.S. early last year, I hopped on a plane to Beijing. China is certainly not renown for its 'openness and tolerance' but they are building a lot of new buildings in their cities at the moment - and that is exactly why I am here. Strangely enough, as China has improved its economic situation in recent years, so have the creative industries begun to germinate.
The things Florida has been preaching are not 'magic bullets' for economic success. Rather, opportunity, as always, will come first and the amenities that are desired by the Creative Class will follow - it doesn't matter if it is the U.S.A. or China - human nature begs for opportunities that can improve life first.
Although his emphasis on the importance of the Creative Class and their influence may have been overestimated, Florida is a keen observer of trends effecting city development. He is also responsible for engendering a broader interest in the city beyond planners and urban fanatics - which is a great thing. I agree with his notion that 'Mega-Regions' will take the lead in driving emerging economies in the coming years. Though the rise of the Creative Class might be over now, it will be interesting to see what Dr. Florida has in store for us in his upcoming book The Great Reset: How New Ways of Living and Working Drive Post-Crash Prosperity.
0 comments:
Post a Comment