cultural economy planning in creative cities_discourses and practices

7/27/2019 Cultural Economy Planning in Creative Cities_discourses and Practices

1/19

Cultural Economy Planning in CreativeCities: Discourse and Practice

CARL GRODACH

Abstract

While a growing body of research analyses the functional mechanisms of the culturalor creative economy, there has been little attention devoted to understanding howlocal governments translate this work into policy. Moreover, research in this vein focusespredominately on Richard Floridas creative class thesis rather than considering thewider body of work that may influence policy. This article seeks to develop a deeperunderstanding of how municipalities conceptualize and plan for the cultural economythrough the lens of two cities held up as model creative cities Austin, Texas andToronto, Ontario. The work pays particular attention to how the cities adopt and adaptleading theories, strategies and discourses of the cultural economy. While policydocuments indicate that the cities embrace the creative city model, in practice agenciestend to adapt conventional economic development strategies for cultural economy activityand appropriate the language of the creative city for multiple purposes.

A growing body of literature analyses the functional mechanisms of the cultural orcreative economy (e.g. Scott, 2000; Florida, 2002; Hesmondhalgh, 2007).1 However,despite the fact that local governments provide wide-ranging investments in culturaland creative activity (Grodach and Loukaitou-Sideris, 2007; Evans, 2009), there hasbeen less attention devoted to understanding how local governments translate this workinto actual policy. The majority of existing work in this vein focuses predominatelyon Richard Floridas creative city discourse and asserts that his work has had a majorinfluence on the language and direction of urban policies, often reinforcing neoliberalagendas (Gibson and Klocker, 2005; Peck, 2005). Case-study research conducted inNorth America (McCann, 2007; Zimmerman, 2008; Catungal and Leslie, 2009; Catungalet al., 2009; Long, 2009; Ponzini and Rossi, 2010), Europe (Bayliss, 2007; Vanolo, 2008;Romein and Trip, 2009), Australia (Gibson and Klocker, 2005; Atkinson and Easthope,2009) and Asia (Kong and OConner, 2009; Sasaki, 2010) is overwhelmingly criticalof creative city policies for exacerbating social and economic inequalities, despite theadoption of language that stresses the importance of public space and cultural diversity.

This research was undertaken with the assistance of the Government of Canada.1 Although there is no uniform definition of the cultural or creative economy, research in this arena

typically focuses on the production and consumption of goods and services with high symbolic value

which generally relies on specialized labor and intellectual property (Scott, 2000; Americans for

the Arts, 2008; Markusen et al., 2008). This includes media fields (film and television, magazine

and book publishing, advertising), design (architecture, fashion), and the commercial and nonprofit

visual and performing arts. Definitions of the creative economy tend to focus more broadly on thesciences, engineering and high-tech fields alongside the cultural sectors (Florida, 2002). Although

there is debate as to what constitutes culturalor creative economies (seeMarkusen et al.,2008)and

cities tend to conflate these terms and definitions my focus is on the sectors I identify with the

cultural economy.

bs_bs_banner

International Journal of Urban and Regional Research

10.1111/j.1468-2427.2012.01165.x

2012 Urban Research Publications Limited. Published by Blackwell Publishing. 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX42DQ, UK and 350 Main St, Malden, MA 02148, USA


2/19

This work finds that cities pursue the creative city agenda primarily as a place-marketingtool that privileges the needs and desires of particular groups, including specificsegments of the creative economy workforce, typically by encouraging gentrification anddisplacement in central-city areas. While this work is valuable for identifying problemswith the creative city model in relation to urban policy, a shortcoming of the literature is

that it rarely observes the application of this model in a wider cultural policy context. Tofully understand the processes at work behind urban cultural economy policymaking,I argue that we need to expand the lens of analysis beyond the creative city focusand analyse other approaches that potentially influence urban development strategies.Focusing exclusively on the creative city agenda provides only a partial understanding ofurban cultural development, and in the process we may miss opportunities to address theshortcomings of the creative city approach.

This article seeks to develop a deeper understanding of how municipalitiesconceptualize and plan for the cultural economy through the lens of two cities heldup as model creative cities Austin, Texas and Toronto, Ontario. The purpose of thisanalysis is to explore how scholarly ideas in relation to the cultural economy are distilled

in the translation into policy and practice. What are the key theories and discourses thatframe cultural economy planning and policy in Austin and Toronto? How are thesetheories and discourses adopted and adapted in practice? To address these questions, thefollowing section presents a typology of the most common approaches to the culturaleconomy. Drawing on this framework, I examine how key planning and policydocuments reflect these models, and in turn how the cities existing cultural economyprograms adhere to and diverge from plan discourse. In so doing, this article improvesour understanding of urban cultural policymaking and adds to the creative city debatein two ways. First, by broadening the focus beyond the creative city thesis, I examinethe extent to which different models of cultural economy development influencepolicymaking. I find that while municipal policy documents indicate that the cities

have embraced the creative city model, in practice agencies tend to adapt conventionaleconomic development strategies for cultural economy activity alongside strategiesassociated with multiple models. Second, in contrast to most research that argues citiesadopt the creative city language to reinforce neoliberal governance strategies, I find thatagencies appropriate the language of the creative city to suit different purposes. As such,the creative city model serves as a vehicle for varying agendas rather than as a tool forneoliberal development schemes exclusively.

Conceptualizing the cultural economy

This section identifies five approaches to cultural economy development: theconventional model, the creative city model, the cultural industries model, the culturaloccupations model and the cultural planning model (Table 1). Although these areideal types drawn from the literature constructed to highlight different perspectivesor agendas, there is some conceptual and policy overlap between models. Given spaceconstraints, rather than provide a comprehensive overview of this literature, I highlightthe key individuals, texts, concepts and policies associated with each model as aframework for the case-study analysis.

The conventional model

Economic development organizations have long focused on creating a good businessclimate to attract firms and investment from outside a locale. Tax abatements, landwrite-downs, development assistance and minimal labor standards are marketed totargeted firms or industries (which may or may not include cultural industries).Frequently, the social and environmental costs and the distribution of benefits associated

2 Carl Grodach

International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 2012 Urban Research Publications Limited


3/19

with this approach are ignored by economic development officials (Blakely and GreenLeigh, 2010). Additionally, arts and cultural activity is employed in city marketingcampaigns and redevelopment projects (Grodach and Loukaitou-Sideris, 2007).Everything ranging from ethnic districts to flagship museums is considered asa tool to attract tourists and create a distinct image to stand out in a competitive

marketplace. Cities around the globe routinely engage in selling places despite criticismthat this favors the private sector and tourists over local populations, discounts publicparticipation and stretches thin municipal budgets with little public benefit (Evans,2003). Concurrently, a separate body an arts council or cultural affairs agency ischarged with supporting the nonprofit arts sector, typically through funding localarts organizations and commissioning community-based arts programs (Markusen andGadwa, 2010). Consequently, different entities with different tools and resources workwith commercial cultural industries or nonprofit arts bodies without recognition of theirpotential overlaps and common issues.

The creative city modelThe creative city model is primarily derived from Richard Floridas (2002; 2004)creative class thesis, which asserts that creativity is the key ingredient to economicgrowth and innovation (see also Landry, 2000; Howkins, 2002). Because costs ofproduction have become less important than access to specialized skills and knowledge,cities must focus not on attracting firms and industry as in conventional economicdevelopment, but on attracting the highly educated and mobile creative class, whichincludes a wide spectrum of occupations ranging from software programmers to visualartists. Cities are advised to focus on producing an attractive quality of place byredeveloping historic mixed-use neighborhoods, investing in vibrant arts scenes andoutdoor activities, and promoting their cultural diversity to appeal to the consumption

preferences of the creative class. This assertion is reinforced by Clark (2004) who arguesthat cultural amenities attract highly skilled and educated individuals, particularly inthe context of a new political culture in which consumption issues take on enhancedsignificance, and by Charles Landry (2000) who emphasizes the importance of creativeapproaches to planning and governance in tackling economic and social problemsbrought about by urban restructuring.

Scholars criticize Floridas concept of the creative class and the associated implicationsfor urban development. Considered as an extension of earlier urban entrepreneurialstrategies, this concept has foremost been criticized as a tool for government-endorsedgentrification and insecure labor conditions that have come to characterize neoliberalgovernance (Harvey, 1989; Peck, 2005; McCann, 2007). Florida (2004; 2010) himself has

noted that cities with large creative economies exhibit high levels of social and economicpolarization, and that the income gap between creative class and service workers mustbe addressed through greater creative class leadership rather than by strengtheningtraditional labor support mechanisms (Donegan and Lowe, 2008: 47). A 2009 conference(Strength in Services) spearheaded by Florida focused on improving service work inToronto and Ontario.

The cultural industries model

This model focuses on the functional characteristics of the commercial culturalindustries (Scott, 2000; 2008; Pratt, 2005; Hesmondhalgh, 2007). In brief, the cultural

industry production system is characterized by interlocking clusters of many specializedfirms that rely on high levels of part-time and project-based employment in fields whererapid changes in design and consumer preferences are the norm. This creates a high-riskenvironment and an associated need for proximity to the knowledge, supplies andsocial networks essential to a given sector. In contrast to the creative city model, whichfocuses on place largely in relation to consumption spaces for creative workers, the

Cultural economy planning in Austin and Toronto 3



4/19

focus here is on enhancing aspects of the industrial milieu. Indeed, scholars associatedwith this approach critique the creative city model for claiming that cultural amenitiesand diversity attract human capital rather than the reverse, as well as for not carefullyconsidering the importance of the cultural production system characterized byagglomerations of shifting interfirm networks and flexible labor markets (Scott, 2006:

7; Storper and Manville, 2006; Storper and Scott, 2009). As such, cultural industriespolicies focus on building labor markets and training opportunities, the promotionof social and institutional networking, promoting innovation and minimizing risk,developing appropriate infrastructure, and the marketing and distribution of content.

The cultural occupations model

Ann Markusens work typifies the cultural occupations model (Markusen, 2004; 2006;Markusen and Schrock, 2006). This work concentrates specifically on the characteristicsand needs of artists (musicians, writers, and performing and visual artists), and to a

lesser extent those of workers in design and media-related fields. Markusen draws adistinction between her work and the cultural industries approach by distinguishingher focus on what people do rather than on the products they produce. Further, she favorsan occupational approach because many cultural industries such as advertising orpublishing are characterized by high numbers of workers that do not engage directly incultural production (Markusen and Schrock, 2006). Similarly, she critiques the creativecity thesis, on the grounds that this model lumps together very different occupations andtreats the arts simply as consumer amenities for economic growth at the expense of otherroles (Markusen, 2006). Rather, Markusen argues that cultural policy should focus onenhancing the artistic dividend, which artists create through their work in commercialcultural sectors, the sale of their work, the multiplier effect from high levels of inter-artist

support, and by improving the quality of life and area image (Markusen and Schrock,2006: 1662). The occupational focus draws attention to these benefits, but also attemptsto address the high levels of self-employment in many cultural sectors. Policyrecommendations are therefore directed toward the characteristics and needs of artists,including affordable accommodation and work space, incubating talent and providingnetworking opportunities, and directing financial support to smaller arts organizationsrather than flagship cultural institutions (Jackson et al., 2006; Markusen and Schrock,2006). Similarly, Currid (2007) refers to the importance of informal social spacesincluding bars and galleries, advocating zoning mechanisms to encourage such spaces.

The cultural planning modelCultural planning focuses on developing local arts, culture and heritage as aspringboard for neighborhood-level development (Grogan and Mercer, 1995; Evans,2001; McNulty, 2005). Similar to asset-based community development (Kretzman andMcKnight, 1993), this approach focuses on identifying and developing communitycultural resources in a structured and inclusive planning process, and buildingcommunity capacity and social relationships within and between communities. A keyfocus of the cultural planning model is on mapping and assessing the cultural assetsand needs of an area to identify ways to build on and link existing strengths and addresspotential problems (Evans and Foord, 2008). Often, work focuses on cultivatinginformal and grassroots organizations, small firms, artists and cultural workers of

lower-income neighborhoods (Grams and Warr, 2003). Rather than investing in plannedcultural districts and flagship projects, this model calls for concentrating supportin neighborhood cultural clusters existing concentrations of cultural resourcesincluding nonprofit arts organizations, neighborhood-based creative businesses andresident artists because they are associated with high levels of civic engagement aswell as opportunities to enhance artistic development (Stern and Seifert, 2010).

4 Carl Grodach



5/19

Methodology

This article takes a comparative case-study approach to better understand how cities

translate cultural economy theory in their planning and policy documents and programs.Austin and Toronto are excellent case studies for this purpose. First, multiple agencies,agency subdivisions and committees are involved in the development and promotionof artistic and cultural activity in each city. Second, both cities envision arts andculture as economic development tools. Indicative of this, each houses its culturalaffairs agency within a larger Economic Development Office Torontos EconomicDevelopment & Culture Division, and Austins Economic Growth & RedevelopmentServices. Third, the cultural economy is central to the image of both cities. In Toronto,public officials and agencies use the creative city concept as a means of globalpromotion, particularly since the 1998 amalgamation of the city with five surroundingmunicipalities and the relocation of Richard Florida to the University of Toronto. Since

the 1990s, Austin has actively promoted its image as the Live Music Capital of theWorld, notably through the SXSW music festival. Both cities have engaged in numerousplanning activities around arts and culture, and have completed major cultural plans inthe last decade. Most recently, Toronto has concentrated on mapping clusters of culturaleconomy activity and, while the Austin Cultural Arts Division has attempted to institutebroad-based financial and technical support for creative industries (as discussed below),much of their programming revolves around the music sector and arts amenities (e.g.public art, urban design). Further, both cities have overseen major investments inlarge-scale cultural facilities, community arts centers and redevelopment projects forfilm and media corporations. Fourth, both possess high levels of cultural industryemployment. Toronto is home to the third-largest film industry in North America and has

healthy employment levels across multiple cultural economy occupations (Gertler et al.,2006; City of Toronto, 2007). Austin also boasts substantial numbers employed incultural sectors, most notably in the music industry (City of Austin, 2006).

Still, the cities do present somewhat different contexts for cultural economy policy.Toronto is a large and diverse region of 5.3 million people, over 43% of whom areforeign-born and 30% are members of minority groups (Gertler et al., 2006). By

Table 1 Cultural economy models and policies

Model Key Ideas/Focus Policies People/Texts

Conventionaleconomic

development

Attract outsidefirms/industry

No distinct culturaleconomy policy

Cost-based incentives Minimize regulations

Marketing

Export-base theoryNorth (1955)

Blakely and GreenLeigh (2010)

Creative city Attract mobile talent Quality of place Arts/culture as amenities

Florida (2002; 2004)Landry (2000)

Culturalindustries

Agglomeration processes,firm specializationsand linkages

Minimize transactioncosts and risk

Enhance information,partnerships

Hesmondhalgh (2007)Pratt (1997; 2005)Scott (2000; 2004)

Culturaloccupations

Characteristics and needsof artists and relatedoccupations

Artist centers, affordablespace, training

Social and businessnetworks

Markusen (2004;2006)

Culturalplanning

Informal arts/culture Place-based community

development

Asset mapping forneighborhood empowerment,capacity building

Grogan and Mercer(1995) Evans (2001)McNulty (2005)




6/19

contrast, the Austin metropolitan area contains 1.25 million people, 85% of whom arewhite and 30% Hispanic (Austin Chamber of Commerce, 2011).2 Additionally, culturalplanning in Toronto has a longer history, with the establishment of the Toronto ArtsCouncil in the early 1960s and active arts planning from the 1970s onwards (Silcox,1974). Although Austin established an arts funding program in 1977, it began its cultural

planning in earnest in the mid-1980s and initiated separate support for musicians inthe late 1980s (City of Austin, 2002). Further, although cities in both countries rely onsimilar planning tools, Canadian cities tend to maintain stronger restrictions on landuse and municipal financial incentives for private sector development (Reese, 2005),although this is changing. For example, while most Canadian cities can only provideincentives within defined Community Improvement Project Areas (CIPAs), in 2008Toronto designated the entire city a CIPA, thus enabling the use of incentives for newdevelopment including creative-oriented businesses city-wide. Finally, Canadianprovinces have traditionally had greater involvement with local units than US states,and indeed Ontario evidences much more participation in cultural economy planning(through the Ontario Ministry of Tourism and Culture and the Ontario Media

Development Corporation) than Texas agencies do for Austins cultural industries.In each case study, I reviewed and analysed cultural economy plans and programs

produced by offices of economic development, cultural affairs, the Mayors Office andother relevant public or publicprivate entities over the last decade. Document analysisfocused on identifying and comparing (1) the goals and scope of existing culturaleconomic development in the plans and policy documents (e.g. what industries,occupations and/or places receive support and the type of support received), and (2) theways in which the plans and policies reflect and adapt the ideas espoused in the fivecultural economic development models based on the keywords, concepts and policiesdescribed in the prior section.3

To gain a deeper perspective into the influence of cultural economy theory on

policy and planning, I conducted 26 interviews with directors and staff of municipalagencies (e.g. cultural affairs offices, economic development departments, MayorsOffices); public, nonprofit and quasi-public organizations involved in implementingcity and state/provincially funded programs (e.g. Austin Chamber of Commerce,Artscape, Ontario Media Development Corporation, Texas Film Commission, TorontoArts Council); and other participants in the cultural economy at local and provinciallevels including representatives of the film and music industries, authors of culturalpolicy reports contracted by the cities, and scholars involved in cultural planningactivities in the cities. The interviews lasted between 45 and 90 minutes. The primarypurpose of the interviews was to determine how and why different individualsinterpret, reframe and apply the theoretical models evident in the planning and

policy documents. Additionally, interviews were important to identify key eventsthat influenced decision making in terms of policy framing, and how such eventsor issues affected different parties. Interviews also enabled me to confirm and clarifyinformation in documentary sources as necessary. Upon completion of the interviews,I analysed the transcripts and coded responses employing the same criteria used for thedocument sources.

2 The US Census asks residents to select the race or races with which they most closely identify and

to separately indicate whether or not they are of Hispanic origin. Therefore, white and Hispanic

populations do not total 100%.

3 For the analysis, I began with an internet search of city websites, scholarly work and news articles

to identify key documents as well as potential interview subjects. The document analysis consistedof an initial reading of the texts to determine the major content and overall structuring concepts

and organization of each text based on the table of contents, headings and dominant or recurring

keywords and phrases. Next, I took multiple and more focused readings that examined how these

features reflected the policy models.

6 Carl Grodach



7/19

Cultural economy planning in Toronto

In Torontos policy documents, the creative city model provides a unifying languageand justification for supporting local cultural activity. However, this model doesnot uniformly steer the agenda of any municipal agency. Rather, agencies tend to

independently adapt conventional economic development tools for the cultural economyand appropriate the language of the creative city to suit their own purposes. While in someinstances this model is employed to justify public subsidies for large-scale corporateredevelopment projects, it also serves to garner enhanced support for artists working in thecity and increases cultural participation.

Creative city discourse

The creative city model clearly permeates each of the key documents defining Torontosapproach to cultural economic development the Culture Plan for the Creative City (Cityof Toronto, 2003), the Agenda for Prosperity (City of Toronto, 2008a) and the Creative

City Planning Framework (City of Toronto, 2008b). The influence of this model onthe citys approach began to emerge following the 1998 amalgamation, with a workingdocument for the Culture Plan produced by the Culture Division (City of Toronto, 2001),as well as in economic development documents (City of Toronto, 2000a; 2000b).

The Culture Plan, the Culture Divisions 10-year strategic plan adopted in 2003, isbased on the idea that

great cities of the world are all Creative Cities whose citizens work with ideas, are intenselymobile and insist on a high quality of life wherever they choose to live . . . Torontos arts,culture and heritage will help to attract the educated, mobile newcomers we want, keep our bestand brightest at home and make our economy among the strongest anywhere (City of Toronto,2003: 1, 7).

According to the plan, the inspiration for this position is the American economistRichard Florida and his colleagues [who] have found a correlation between a cityscreative sphere and its economic competitiveness; they call it the Creativity Index (ibid.:9; see also Gertler et al., 2002). In order to gauge the plans success, the Culture Divisionproduced reports in 2005 and 2008 that evaluated Toronto according to FloridasCreativity Index. Moreover, although recommendations closely follow conventional artspolicy issues funding for artists and cultural facilities, public art, and participationin arts and cultural events (particularly for younger and more diverse audiences) theCulture Divisions justification for supporting these priority areas is aligned with thecreative city model. Rather than arguing for the arts on the basis of their intrinsic benefits,

the plan primarily emphasizes their role in economic competitiveness as quality-of-lifeamenities and, to a lesser extent, as a form of social intervention through the emphasis oncultural participation (Grundy and Boudreau, 2008).

Prepared by the Mayors Economic Competitiveness Advisory Committee, Torontosrecent economic development plan, Agenda for Prosperity (City of Toronto, 2008a),similarly draws on the concept of creativity and the ideas popularized by Florida as aframing device. The plan opens with the mayors declaration that we must put creativityat the heart of the citys economic development strategy (ibid.: n.p.) and stressesthat Toronto must build on its diverse, creative, talented and educated labour pool(ibid.: 13). The plan is organized around four pillars (including Creative Toronto)and the importance of creativity to economic growth is woven throughout the document.

Simultaneous to highlighting the importance of a creative workforce, Agenda forProsperity combines attention to growing strategic industry sectors(ibid.: 16) rangingfrom aerospace and automotive manufacturing to design and screen-based industries with a geographic or place-based approach to creative sector development (ibid.: 26)because place and the attributes of place matter more than ever in attractingincreasingly mobile talent and capital (ibid.: 8).




8/19

The Creative City Planning Framework (City of Toronto, 2008b), which wasproduced in conjunction with Agenda for Prosperity, is similarly infused with Floridasthesis that attracting and retaining a global and mobile class of creative workersand entrepreneurs is now a critical factor in determining which cities flourish whileothers languish (ibid.: 21). However, while Floridas blueprint for competitiveness is

ostensibly the documents rationale, the authors translate this through the lens of thecultural planning model. Bolstering the place-based approach advocated in Agenda forProsperity, the authors adapt the cultural planning model for the creative city agenda,first by taking inventory of the disparate plans and initiatives produced by a variety ofmunicipal agencies that relate to the creative economy. Second, they direct the City tomove beyond its existing sector-based approach and build inter-agency collaboration anda broader vision of the tools available to government to support cultural development(ibid.: 3). Third, this work recognizes that creative economy activity takes placein creative hubs and districts places where density, diversity, authenticity andconnectivity converge to generate both the raw material and the product of creativeactivity (ibid.: 25). As such, rather than emphasizing neighborhood-based creative

activity to build community capacity, the cultural planning model is adapted to identifyand develop nodes of a larger creative economy.4

Influences and adaptations of the creative city model

By all outward appearances, the creative city model has had a strong influence on theCitys recognition of the economic significance of arts and cultural activity (City ofToronto, 2008a; 2008b; 2008c). As a long-serving Toronto official remarks (interview,15 July 2009): ten years ago government didnt get it at all. Their perception of culturewas the rich people going to the opera . . . Well, I think they connected the dots [andunderstand that] the thread that holds a lot of the key economic sectors together is the

cultural and creative sector. However, despite the presentation of a unified vision, Cityagencies do not strictly adhere to this model in practice.

The creative city model exhibits the strongest influence in terms of city branding. Thecurrent marketing narrative, which extends well beyond the documents described above,stresses that the city is on the cusp or verge of competing with the worlds greatestcities, but will lose this opportunity if it does not act. As Florida himself states, Torontois at an inflection point, to strive for greatness as one of the worlds magnet creative citiesor to be a really good second-tier city. All the ingredients are here (cited in City ofToronto, 2008b: 3). Whereas in the past these ingredients might have included a goodbusiness climate, easy transportation access and low crime rates, today the emphasisis on an educated and creative workforce, cultural diversity and quality of life. So when

the mayor disbanded the Toronto Economic Development Corporation (TEDCO) in2008 to form three new entities the Toronto Port Lands Company, Invest Toronto andBuild Toronto Invest Toronto (established to promote the city for business investment)embraced this theme. As a leader in the new agency states:

Ten years ago it was all about safe neighborhoods which we still have and an efficienttransportation and transit system . . . The traditional kinds of things that economic developmentpeople focused on. But they didnt focus as much on place . . . They didnt focus as muchon vibrancy and diversity. And they probably didnt focus as much on the local bohemianalternative lifestyles and participants in the economy that we have in Toronto. Now, thats whatyoure going to see (interview, 15 July 2009).

4 The approach to cultural economic development described in both of the latter two documents is

markedly influenced by Gertler et al. (2006), a research report commissioned by the City of Toronto

and the Ontario government.

8 Carl Grodach



9/19

Similarly, a respondent formerly with TEDCO and now with Build Toronto explains that:

in responding to RFPs [requests for proposals], we now say: you are within eight minutesof 50 different types of restaurants. You are within X minutes of the different ethnicneighborhoods in the city. Our thinking has been rejigged that way . . . Ive seen a real shift

that way in the past three or four years and this was kind of when Richard Florida was cominginto vogue (interview, 15 July 2009).

Further, Toronto Unlimited, the citys brand identity initiated in 2005 by TourismToronto and the provincial government, promotes Toronto as The City of Imaginationdefined by a level of openness unlikely in any city, a deep and culturally rich humanmosaic and the diversity and the quality of its talent pool (Toronto Unlimited, n.d.).

Despite the unified marketing message, the actual adoption of the creative city modelvaries across municipal agencies and the creative city vision is manipulated in multipleways. First, agencies may draw on the creative city concept to achieve their own missionand attract attention to previously ignored demands. For example, a central issue

identified in the Culture Plan is that Toronto does not sufficiently fund the arts. Thisclaim is in keeping with the traditional grant-making role of cultural affairs agencies;however, the Culture Division justifies this criticism on the basis of the creative classthesis. It argues that competitors like Chicago, Montreal and San Francisco makesubstantially higher investments and, without a boost in spending to ensure a thriving artsscene, Toronto will be at a disadvantage in attracting a mobile and talented workforce.While the Culture Division promotes this argument, it is primarily driven by its coremandate to promote and increase access to arts and cultural activities. As a long-servingarts official explains, any argument that will increase funding for arts and culture isworth pursuing. Ive heard Rita [Davies director of the Culture Division] say that ahundred times. And shes probably not wrong . . . I definitely see it as our role to keep

pushing hard to see that the individual artists and the arts organizations are not left out(interview, 14 July 2009).Second, an agency may frame a project within the creative city model even though

it was not specifically initiated to support creative economic activity. For instance,Toronto-based media and entertainment corporation CORUS approached TEDCOfor assistance in consolidating its 11 sites scattered across the city at one location. Inresponse, TEDCO (which until it disbanded was in charge of redeveloping Torontoswaterfront) made available a brownfield site at the port, and provided loans and financialassistance to the firm enabling construction of a new 500,000 square foot facility.The primary impetus behind dedicating a large and prominent site to CORUS was thepurported threat of losing the firm and with it hundreds of jobs, as well as the opportunity

for waterfront redevelopment.

5

Yet the agency argued that the project met the Cityscreative economy initiative, referring to the project as a convergence zone, although itwas never part of a concerted strategy geared towards cultural economic development orboosting media industry activity. A respondent formerly with TEDCO underscores thisinstrumental use of culture: One of the key mandates for TEDCO as an economicdevelopment organization in the city was business retention and expansion. So anythingthat creates employment, particularly with respect to waterfront revitalization . . .[Culture is] more of a means (interview, 15 July 2009). At the same time, some questionthis employment strategy and argue that the project has destroyed an existingconvergence center, Liberty Village, by relocating as many as 1,000 CORUSemployees and 140,000 square feet of film-production space from this area to the

waterfront site without public participation in the decision-making process (WhatsWrong Toronto, 2009). This scenario better reflects the conventional mode of operationthan the creative city model.

5 TEDCO financed and built the 500,000 square foot Pinewood film studio (formerly Filmport) on an

adjacent waterfront site for the same objectives.




10/19

Third, the creative city concept is used to promote strategies at odds with Floridasadvice. Reinforcing the emphasis on marketing, a key program held up as furtheringTorontos creative city strategy is the CanadaOntario Infrastructure Program, orCultural Renaissance, a CDN $233 million initiative funded by the federal andprovincial governments to leverage money for the creation of new or expanded facilities

for seven of Torontos major cultural institutions, like the Royal Ontario Museum, ArtGallery of Ontario and the Toronto Opera (Jenkins, 2005). The investment in flagshipcultural institutions, which is geared towards attracting international attention similarto that lavished on the Guggenheim Bilbao, deviates from Floridas (2002: 25960)emphasis on street-level amenities and historic mixed-use areas, despite addressingquality of place. Further, as promoted in the Culture Plan, the Citys primary attempt tocapitalize on the Cultural Renaissance initiative focuses on marketing and brandingactivities. This includes the formation of a spectacular Cultural Corridor, an Avenueof the Arts linking the Cultural Renaissance projects; the Year of Creativity and LiveWith Culture marketing campaigns timed to promote the opening of the CulturalRenaissance institutions alongside the cultural sectors more broadly; and the Live With

Culture website promoting local arts and culture events (City of Toronto, 2003: 2).Fourth, recent programs use the creative city model as a platform to respond to the

City Council directive that municipal agencies adopt the cultural planning approach as away to increase economic competitiveness (City of Toronto, 2008c: 3). In 2009, theCulture Division initiated Placing Creativity (in conjunction with Richard Floridasresearch partner Kevin Stolarick) to study various methods and approaches to mappingcreative economy activity. This program has expanded into a project sponsored by theOntario Ministry of Cultures Creative Community Prosperity Fund to map culturalemployment and business and build a cultural location index not simply for economiccompetitiveness, but to guide planning decisions and address land-use issues thatpotentially threaten cultural economy businesses and workers. Additionally, Artscape, a

Toronto-based nonprofit focused on arts-led redevelopment, has spearheaded the CreativeConvergence Project, a similar initiative funded by a grant from the Ontario MediaDevelopment Corporation (OMDC) and a host of municipal agencies, to identify hubs ofcreative economy activity and the infrastructure and place-based networks that supportthem (Jones et al., 2009). Each effort blends the focus of the creative city and culturaloccupations models through the lens of the cultural planning approach by analysingthe cross-industry and occupational dynamics that occur in specific places, andrecommending creative economy support strategies focused around creative space andentrepreneurship (rather than identifying cultural resources for grassroots neighborhooddevelopment). Although the City has yet to implement policy responding to theseprograms, by concentrating on both cultural production and consumption they represent

an advance over the amenities-based creative city model. However, despite the place-based focus, neither fully addresses neighborhood inequality. The Creative ConvergenceProject, for instance, expressly addressed gentrification in community meetings withcultural sector participants, but only in terms of the negative effects on this segment ofneighborhood residents and businesses. As such, despite the influence of the culturalplanning approach, which stresses the importance of broad community participation anddecision making, by turning inwards to focus exclusively on cultural sector actors, theprograms inadvertently exclude others that live and work in these neighborhoods.

Concurrently, alongside the adaptations of the creative city model, much of the actualpolicy directed at cultural economy activity resembles the conventional and culturalindustries models. For one, although housed in Economic Development, the Culture

Division continues to primarily focus on conventional cultural affairs activities such asarts grant-making, community arts programs, programming city-run cultural institutions,and promoting local arts and cultural activity.6 For its part, the Economic Development

6 Grants are financed by the Culture Division but awarded by the Toronto Arts Council, a nonprofit

agency under contract with the City and within municipal government prior to amalgamation.

10 Carl Grodach



11/19

Office largely pursues a sector or cluster-based approach that incorporates an emphasison industry advocacy and support with a reliance on conventional incentives targeted atkey clusters (anonymous interview with Economic Development official, 20 August2009). Additionally, rather than creating programs for a cultural or creative industriescluster, the Economic Development Office has singled out film, fashion and design as

individual clusters. In this regard, Toronto (and Ontario) has concentrated attentionprimarily on growing the film and television industry, through its official focus is on allscreen-based production (Toronto Film Board, 2007). Film and TV receive specifictreatment from the Toronto Film and Television Office, a Film Commissioner and theToronto Film Board, which provide assistance with industry-specific services (e.g.granting of permits, location support and security), research and marketing, as well asCity assistance with the Toronto International Film Festival. Although the City itselfprovides minimal financial assistance, it benefits from the availability of over CDN $200million in OMDC tax credits the vast majority of which go to Toronto productions(anonymous interview with OMDC official, 15 July 2009). The City also has a dedicatedmember of staff to oversee similar activities for the fashion and design industries,

although that individuals remit is much more limited and no direct financial assistanceexists. However, in the 1980s, the City did establish the Fashion Industry LiaisonCommittee (FILC), comprising City and industry representatives, to address industryissues. FILC went on to establish a fashion incubator and community college programs.The City also maintains the Design Industry Advisory Committee, which plays a similarrole to FILC. While this activity resembles recommendations under the culturalindustries model, respondents state that they are working from a cluster approach similarto that proposed by Michael Porter (anonymous interviews with Economic Developmentofficials, 20 and 31 August 2009).

In sum, the creative city model dominates the language of cultural economy planningin Toronto and is employed to justify the instrumental use of culture for upscaling

central-city property as documented in prior literature. However, this is not the entirestory. Because the model and associated discourse are flexible, they are combined withaspects of the other models to support objectives intended to directly assist artists andother cultural workers. As we see in Austin, the City has firmly embraced the creativecity language to reinforce preexisting programs, and agencies draw on this language inan attempt to institute more direct cultural economy support mechanisms; these,however, have not been strongly supported by the City.

Cultural economy planning in Austin

While the City Council officially branded Austin Live Music Capital of the World in1991 (City of Austin, 2010a), only over the last decade has it actively recognized a widerrange of artistic and cultural activity for economic development. During this time, thecreative city model has dominated plan language and has been a major influence onAustins cultural economic development program. Still, as in Toronto, not only do manypolicies framed in the creative city model reflect other agendas, but the City has notwholeheartedly supported the creative city rhetoric it espouses, and music continues tocommand the Citys attention.

Creative city discourse

Two key documents demonstrate how Austin frames cultural economy planning and

policy: Austins Economic Future: The Mayors Taskforce on the Economy (City ofAustin, 2003) and CreateAustin Cultural Master Plan (Cultural Affairs Division, 2009).The stated purpose of the Mayors Taskforce, which was created in response to fallingemployment during the post-dotcom recession, is to identify strategies for economicgrowth and to combat rising income inequality in the city. Floridas creative city thesisis an important organizing component of The Mayors Taskforce. For one, 11/2 pages of




12/19

the documents 31/2 page introduction are dedicated to describing Floridas work.Additionally, the authors tout Austins high score on his creativity index (City of Austin,2003: 7) and rely on his definition of creative and noncreative occupations to categorizeemployment in the city. Above all, the document language frames cultural activity as aquality-of-life amenity that contributes to economic growth:

the ability to maintain creativity and innovation in the workplace requires ready access to avibrant, renewing cultural environment . . . This is especially true in a place like Austin, wherequality of life is such an important element of local competitive advantage to the extentthat the City can augment the perceived quality of life, then local economic development isenhanced (ibid.: 8, 13).

Within this framework, The Mayors Taskforce reports the findings of threesubcommittees focusing on what are considered to be the Citys leading economicdevelopment targets traditional industries, small business, and cultural vitality andcreative economy. While the traditional industries and small business subcommitteesignore the creative city model, the findings of the cultural vitality and creative economy

subcommittee, constituting by far the largest section of the report, draw extensivelyon the creative city discourse. This subcommittee stresses the importance of supportingarts and cultural activities as amenities to attract the creative class, and as employmentopportunities for creative sector workers. However, actual recommendations betterreflect aspects of the cultural planning and cultural occupations models, with the focus oncreating an inventory of the citys cultural asset base and a vision for a culturally vitalAustin that responds directly to the needs of artists and cultural providers rather thanconcentrating on cultural consumption and image alone (ibid.: 41).

CreateAustin (Cultural Affairs Division, 2009) draws heavily on the language of thecreative city model and, reflecting the standardization of this discourse over the lastdecade, rarely refers to Florida directly. The plans focus is on supporting Austins

culture of creativity, a phrase that captures Floridas emphasis on arts and creativeactivity as quality-of-life amenities and elements of economic development. As theplans authors assert:

Todays talented, well-educated knowledge workers . . . look for communities that willcontinue to stimulate their creative interests and Austin provides that stimulation. Talentedpeople arrive and new businesses and investments follow . . . Austins culture of creativityalso contributes to its highly praised quality of life by building community spirit, socialcohesion, and tolerance. It contributes to neighborhood revitalization, provides lifelonglearning opportunities for adults of all ages and avocations, and offers positive experiences foryouth . . . In order to sustain the unique qualities that make Austin special, attention is neededto support the infrastructure that can sustain Austins culture of creativity (ibid.: 11).

In conjunction, the plan asserts that cities are competing to create quality of lifeopportunities for their residents, to attract tourism, talent, and investment. As Austingrows and seeks to prosper, it must now compare itself to cities that dream big SanFrancisco, New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, Bilbao, Glasgow, Toronto, and others(ibid.: 15). Paradoxically, while drawing on the creative city discourse to justify thisentrepreneurial stance, woven throughout the plan is trepidation that this competition andan associated rising cost of living are threatening the citys culture of creativity.

As this concern intimates, although the creative city model dominates the plan, itis not a singular influence. In fact, the planning process closely followed the culturalplanning approach, and recommendations reflect multiple competing interests rather

than a single model. In short, the plan identifies 34 recommendations and 10 big ideasthat, while covering an array of activity (ranging from the formation of a community-led creative alliance to enhanced support for technical services and affordableaccommodation and work space for artists), focus predominantly on the need for directand collective representation of creative workers themselves, rather than simply seeingthem as an amenity to lure development. As such, behind the creative city rhetoric is an

12 Carl Grodach



13/19

attempt by planners to address byproducts of this model namely gentrification and,following cultural planning practice, to craft a more progressive creative city policymodel.

Influences and adaptations of the creative city model

The Mayors Taskforce and CreateAustin convey how Austin frames cultural economicdevelopment through the lens of the creative city model. Multiple respondents attributeFloridas references to Austin in his books, his many speaking engagements in the city,and his economic development consulting partnership with former Austin mayor KirkWatson as familiarizing Austin politicians with the creative city language, and in turnencouraging them to embrace the concept and expand cultural economic developmentactivity. Nonetheless, despite the prominence of the creative city discourse and a clearinfluence on the structure of economic development in the city, a focused creative citypolicy agenda has not taken hold.

According to multiple respondents, Floridas work was a chief inspiration not simplyon the language of The Mayors Taskforce, but on the subsequent restructuring ofeconomic development in Austin. As a result of the The Mayors Taskforce, the Citycharged its Cultural Affairs Division (CAD) to focus on arts and cultural industriesas an economic development strategy on behalf of the City (City of Austin, 2010b).To this end, in 2003 the City moved CAD from the Parks Department to the newlyformed Economic Growth and Redevelopment Services Office (EGRSO), an economicdevelopment agency modeled on the three Mayors Taskforce subcommittees alongwith the preexisting redevelopment agency. With the move to EGRSO and the neweconomic development agenda, CAD broadened its conventional focus on nonprofit artsactivities and public art to oversee programs oriented towards a wider range of cultural

industry sectors (essentially film and music), leaving responsibility for cultural facilitymanagement to the Parks Department.Alongside this administrative change, the City adopted the creative city language

to reframe preexisting programs. In particular, as others have noted, the creativecity concept is integral to downtown redevelopment activity, which is an importantcomponent of the Citys smart growth plans formulated in the 1990s to slow peripheralexpansion and channel growth into the urban core (McCann, 2007; Long, 2009). TheCitys recognition and active pursuit of a creative milieu as an economic developmentasset for downtown appeared concretely in 2001 with the Austin Sense of Place andCultural Identity program (renamed Civic Arts with CADs move to EGRSO), whichlooked to public art and streetscape improvements as a source of competitive advantage

when people are looking to live in, work in, and visit a particular city (City of Austin,2004: 17). Building on this program, Austin Alive (City of Austin, 2007), the artsdevelopment study intended to inform downtown planning, takes a similar focus onurban design and cultural amenities to attract residential and retail development. Theplan focuses on the arts because:

the arts and city attractiveness are now considered prerequisites for placement in theinternational successful cities club. Talent above cash is now considered a citys most valuableresource making a citys arts and cultural offerings investments in its future economic viability.The most cutting edge cities . . . purposefully seek to develop a creative milieu in their urbancenters by encouraging street life; adding a broad range of cultural facilities and urban events;attracting bohemians, tech geeks, and internationally diverse people (ibid.: 10).

The attempt to attract this cast of characters downtown also helped to ensure a newhome for the Austin City Limits studio in the US $260 million W Hotel/condominiumproject currently under construction on land sold by the City. The 2005 request forproposals for this major downtown project stipulated that a local cultural institution mustbe incorporated into the site (Austin Chronicle, 2005). As an economic development




14/19

official explains (interview, 6 January 2010), the Austin City Limits studio contributes toa wider mix of uses, something the City prioritizes in downtown as part of its smartgrowth agenda, which relies on music and cultural facilities to make downtown anentertainment destination. This program is reinforced by a US $31.5 million bond forthe construction and renovation of six cultural facilities located in the downtown and

adjacent areas.However, while the attempt to attract redevelopment activity with cultural amenities

is in line with Floridas creative class thesis, this strategy has earlier roots in the Cityspromotion of cultural amenities as a component of its prior high-tech developmentprogram (Austin Chamber of Commerce, 1985; 1998; Engelking, 1996). In fact, Florida(2000; 2002) looked to Austin as a model in developing the creative class thesis prior tothe publication ofRise of the Creative Class. In the monograph Competing in the Age ofTalent(Florida, 2000), he cites Austins smart growth initiatives and the Austin Chamberof Commerces (1998) The Next Century Economy as evidence that far-sighted regionsare recognizing that continued success in the high technology economy will turn on theability to deliver environmental quality, natural amenities, and the lifestyle desired by

knowledge workers (Florida, 2000: 28). Thus, when Florida developed the creative classdiscourse shortly thereafter, his work did not so much engender this activity as providea new language and framing discourse that encouraged the City to reinforce and expandon its preexisting cultural development activities within this vein.

Still, despite the emphasis on the arts as an amenity for economic development, CivicArts also focuses on cultural planning activities, such as conducting cultural assessmentsurveys and assisting the nonprofit arts sector. In fact, a CAD staff person responsiblefor Civic Arts describes him/herself as a cultural planner because I feel like thats whatI do . . . But you must understand that while I have the ability to do things or maybecreate things, there isnt an awareness or consciousness above me about the valueof cultural planning (interview, 12 January 2010). In other words, behind the creative

city model is an alternative interpretation of the creative city that struggles to exist.Indeed, while Austin has actively incorporated the creative city discourse into their

economic development agenda, those in CAD charged with administering culturaleconomy policies have embraced the concept more reluctantly. As a CAD staff memberput it:

Im not a fan of Richard Florida . . . But I tell people, regardless of what you think of him,because a lot of the arts folks think hes flawed, he got people in economic development tothink about arts and culture in a new way. So he put us at the table. Whatever else, we owe himfor that. If nothing else, he got us legitimized. We dont want to lose that because we dont haveany great data to show that we are [economic drivers] (interview, 11 January 2010).

With CADs move to EGRSO thanks to the Citys embrace of the creative citydiscourse, this seat at the table has not so much bolstered its preexisting focus onconventional arts policy (e.g. arts organization grants, public art program) as resulted increating new or taking on existing programs to serve the film and music industries. Filmservices largely consist of conventional strategies (e.g. providing information on permits,ordinances, etc.), and music-related projects (such as the programming of live musicat City Council meetings and the airport) fit the creative cities model indirectly inthat they serve to reinforce Austins image as Live Music Capital of the World.Other longstanding music programs, however, focus on direct support mechanismsfor musicians and music businesses, including a music commission staffed by CityCouncil-appointed representatives to advise the City on music-related issues, and

the Music Loan Guarantee Program, created to provide City backing of loans forcommercial music firms and entrepreneurs. Subsequent to the creative city focus, thelatter was renamed the Creative Industries Loan Guarantee Program and restructured tosupport a wider range of cultural industry activity. Additionally, a new position wascreated the Creative Industries Development Manager to oversee the program andliaise with the creative industries. The recognition of a creative economy beyond music

14 Carl Grodach



15/19

culminated in the CreateAustin plan, which adopted the creative city discourse topropose a comprehensive set of strategies across both commercial cultural activity andthe nonprofit arts field.

Nonetheless, despite the Citys heightened interest in the creative economy, theinstitutionalization of the creative city discourse has made it difficult to alter this path.

In interviews, CAD staff and some on the CreateAustin leadership team expressedfrustration that the City focuses on the creative city predominately as marketing image,and that investment in those working in cultural industries post-Florida has been limitedand fractured. As one respondent with CAD stated:

[In the] wake of the Richard Florida movement, which really got Austin to move arts andculture into [EGRSO], I dont know if its been embraced fully the way it should be to be there.I mean were still the redheaded stepchild. Were there. Some people get it and believe it, butmost people just give it lip service (interview, 11 January 2010).

This frustration motivated CAD itself to develop CreateAustin, which was funded

through a National Endowment for the Arts grant without financial support from the City.In part, those spearheading the plan intended it to provide a blueprint for more proactiveCity involvement with the cultural sectors as a whole (anonymous interviews with CADofficials, 11 and 12 January 2010). However, although the plan was presented to CityCouncil in June 2008, according to CAD staff the formal presentation was stalled byEGRSO management for nearly six months after completion. Moreover, the City didnot actually endorse the plan until July 2010 and, rather than dedicating fundingtowards implementation, the City Council directed staff to create a City/CommunityAccountability Task Force to monitor plan implementation, continue to explore thefeasibility of a creative enterprisedivision separate from EGRSO and requested that theCitys comprehensive plan embrace the creative enterprises (City of Austin, 2010c).

Additionally, CreateAustin was intended to galvanize the cultural community itselfand address the longstanding bias towards the music industry (overshadowing otherforms of creative activity). The creative city discourse enabled plan authors to identifyand articulate the shared issues and needs that exist across the nonprofit and commercialsectors a point at the center of the cultural occupations model rather than simplyfocus on arts as amenities. However, the promotion of the creative city language to unitea wider range of creative activity has met resistance not only from a complacent CityCouncil, but also from members of the music community who do not want to cedetheir status as the privileged cultural sector. According to interviewees, local musicrepresentatives have argued successfully that their economic contribution outweighs thatof other cultural sectors, and therefore deserves further distinct support from the City. In

fact, the music industry has been the principal beneficiary of support since the release ofCreateAustin through the formation of a Live Music Task Force in 2008 to address issuesspecific to the music community, and with the hiring of a new Music Program Managerin 2010 to coordinate music-related programs. Further, although the Creative IndustriesLoan Program technically serves other sectors, it still primarily serves the music industry(anonymous interview with CAD official, 12 January 2010). In sum, not only does theCity often fail to stand behind the creative city agenda, but those within the favoredcultural sector music challenge its implementation. Despite attempts by theCultural Arts Division to reinterpret the creative city discourse, Austin largely continueswith its image and amenity-based development strategy.

Conclusion

The case studies demonstrate that despite the prominence of the creative city language inkey policy documents over the last decade, this model does not uniformly determine thecultural economy program of either city. Contrary to most prior research on creative city




16/19

planning, these case studies qualify the notion that the creative city model dominatescontemporary economic development and invariably facilitates neoliberal developmentschemes (e.g. Peck, 2005). Both cities do employ the creative city discourse to promotethe city image, and to justify the pursuit of redevelopment projects in which culturalactivity serves as a branding device and amenity. Still, a closer examination reveals that

multiple interests adopt and adapt the creative city discourse to realize varying objectivesand agendas. By placing the creative city agenda in the context of other cultural economymodels, not only do we see that the power of this model is primarily in relation to framingplan discourse but also that, behind this discourse, other practices frequently definecultural economy policy.

While each city frames cultural economy planning and policy under the unifyinglanguage of the creative city, agencies operate under their own set of conventions andstrategies that do not always reflect the creative city agenda. The creative city discourseis variously employed by agencies to attract attention to previously ignored demands, topursue alternative programs like Placing Creativity or those identified in CreateAustin,or even to promote strategies at odds with the model itself. Agencies adopt the creative

city discourse to validate preexisting practices, while also experimenting with programsthat draw on other models. As such, cultural affairs agencies are still involved in artsgrant-making and public art, but frame these roles as programs to attract the creativeclass. At the same time, they struggle to implement more comprehensive programsthat are intended to transcend sectoral or organizational (e.g. commercial/nonprofit)divides. This is clearly the case in Austin, where the creative city model seems to havehad a deeper impact, encouraging the restructuring and expansion of the economicdevelopment office and the amenity-based agenda downtown. However, the Citysapproach to economic development predates the creative city model and Florida himselfhas looked to Austin to inform his ideas. On one level, because the creative city modelaffirms the Citys prior cultural economic development program, this illustrates the

limited power of the creative city model beyond planning discourse. Yet, at the sametime, cultural planners have attempted to deploy this language in service to morecomprehensive support strategies, but have met resistance on multiple fronts. Thecreative city model, then, is not simply an instrument of neoliberal development, but asite of contest.

The fact that representative creative cities like Austin and Toronto continue to practicemore conventional approaches to cultural economic development, and that there is astruggle to define the actual meaning and strategies behind the creative city model, issignificant. For local governments, the creative city model stands out from the othermodels in part due to the simple captivating narrative mobile creative people driveeconomic development, and municipalities can make investments that attract this group

and produce economic growth. Additionally, because the creative class concept andthe policy associated with building a creative city is broad, vague and flexible, it canbe manipulated to fit multiple agendas, and to justify now-established roles of localgovernment like marketing and central-city property redevelopment. Another resultof the poorly articulated creative city policy is that, while the model remains powerfulat the level of discourse, it has not become fully institutionalized in policy even in theseself-styled creative cities. However, after a decade of employing the creative citylanguage, we are beginning to see new hybrid programs emerge such as TorontosCreative Convergence Project and Placing Creativity that, while framed under thecreative city banner, draw on and reinterpret other models. These programs foreshadownew, potentially more positive, directions for cultural economy planning based on

longer-term coordinated action. Still, it remains to be seen if such approaches willaddress the problems associated with the creative city model, namely gentrification andsocial exclusion, including their impact on those outside the cultural economy lens.

Carl Grodach ([email protected]), School of Urban and Public Affairs, University of Texas atArlington, 601 S. Nedderman Drive, Box 19588, Arlington, TX 76019, USA.

16 Carl Grodach



17/19

References

Americans for the Arts (2008) Creativeindustries 2008: the 50 city report.Americans for the Arts, Washington, DC.

Atkinson, R. and H. Easthope (2009) Theconsequences of the creative class:the pursuit of creativity strategies inAustralias cities. International Journalof Urban and Regional Research 33.1,6479.

Austin Chamber of Commerce (1985)Creating an opportunity economy:enhancing quality of life in a changingcommunity. City of Austin, Austin.

Austin Chamber of Commerce (1998) Nextcentury economy: sustaining the Austin

regions economic advantage in the 21stcentury. City of Austin, Austin.

Austin Chamber of Commerce (2011) GreaterAustin profile [WWW document]. URLhttp://www.austinchamber.com/DoBusiness/GreaterAustinProfile/population.html (accessed 20 April 2011).

Austin Chronicle (2005) Three for block 21. 8April [WWW document]. URL http://www.austinchronicle.com/gyrobase/Issue/story?oid=oid%3A265687 (accessed 1May 2010).

Bayliss, D. (2007) The rise of the creativecity: culture and creativity in Copenhagen.

European Planning Studies 15.7, 889903Blakely, E. and N. Green Leigh (2010)

Planning local economic development:theory and practice. Fourth edition, Sage,Thousand Oaks, CA.

Catungal, J.P., D. Leslie and Y. Hii (2009)Geographies of displacement in thecreative city: the case of Liberty Village,Toronto. Urban Studies 46.5/6, 1095114.

Catungal, J.P. and D. Leslie (2009)Placing power in the creative city:governmentalities and subjectivities inLiberty Village, Toronto. Environment andPlanning A 41.11, 257694.

City of Austin (2002) Investing in Austinsarts for cultural prosperity and economicgrowth: findings and recommendations.City of Austin, Austin.

City of Austin (2003) Austins economicfuture: the mayors taskforce on theeconomy: subcommittee findings. City

of Austin, Austin.City of Austin (2004) Downtown report,

25 October. City of Austin, Austin.City of Austin (2006) The role of the cultural

sector in the local economy. City ofAustin, Austin.

City of Austin (2007) Austin alive: mappingplace through art and culture. City ofAustin, Austin.

City of Austin (2010a) Austin live musiccapital of the world [WWW document].URL http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/music/(accessed 10 January 2011).

City of Austin (2010b) Cultural arts division[WWW document]. URL http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/redevelopment/cad.htm(accessed 10 January 2011).

City of Austin (2010c) CreateAustin draftresolution, 18 June. City of Austin, Austin.

City of Toronto (2000a) Toronto at thecrossroads: shaping our future. City of

Toronto, Toronto.City of Toronto (2000b) Toronto economic

development strategy. City of Toronto,Toronto.

City of Toronto (2001) Toronto the creativecity: a workprint. City of Toronto,Toronto.

City of Toronto (2003) Culture plan for thecreative city. City of Toronto, Toronto.

City of Toronto (2007) Cluster overview.City of Toronto, Toronto.

City of Toronto (2008a) Agenda forprosperity. City of Toronto, Toronto.

City of Toronto (2008b) Creative cityplanning framework. City of Toronto,Toronto.

City of Toronto (2008c) Creative cityframework. City of Toronto, Toronto.

Clark, T.N. (2004) The city as anentertainment machine. Elsevier Ltd,Oxford.

Cultural Arts Division (2009) CreateAustincultural plan. City of Austin, Austin.

Currid, E. (2007) How art and culture happenin New York. Journal of the AmericanPlanning Association 73.4, 45467.

Donegan, M. and N. Lowe (2008) Inequalityin the creative city: is there still a place forold-fashioned institutions? Economic

Development Quarterly 22.1, 4662.Engelking, S. (1996) Austins opportunity

economy: a model for collaborativetechnology development. Annals of the

New York Academy of Sciences 798,2947.

Evans, G. (2001) Cultural planning: an urbanrenaissance? Routledge, London.

Evans, G. (2003) Hard branding the culturecity: from Prado to Prada. International

Journal of Urban and Regional Research

27.2, 41740.




18/19

Evans, G. (2009) Creative cities, creativespaces and urban policy. Urban Studies46.5/6, 100340.

Evans, G. and J. Foord (2008) Culturalmapping and sustainable communities:

planning for the arts revisited. CulturalTrends 17.2, 6596.

Florida, R. (2000) Competing in the ageof talent: environment, amenities, andthe new economy. Report prepared forthe R.K. Mellon Foundation, HeinzEndowments and Sustainable Pittsburgh.

Florida, R. (2002) The rise of the creativeclass. Basic Books, New York.

Florida, R. (2004) Cities and the creativeclass. Routledge, London.

Florida, R. (2010) The great reset: how

new ways of living and working drivepost-crash prosperity. HarperCollins,New York.

Gertler, M., R. Florida, G. Gates and T.Vinodrai (2002) Competing on creativity:placing Ontarios cities in North Americancontext. Report prepared for the OntarioMinistry of Enterprise, Opportunity andInnovation and the Institute forCompetitiveness and Prosperity, Toronto.

Gertler, M., L. Tesolin and S. Weinstock

(2006) Imagine a Toronto: strategiesfor a creative city. Munk Centre forInternational Studies, University ofToronto.

Gibson, C. and N. Klocker (2005) Thecultural turn in Australian regionaleconomic development discourse:neoliberalising creativity. Geographical

Research 43.1, 93102.Grams, D. and M. Warr (2003) Leveraging

assets: how small budget arts activitiesbenefit neighborhoods. Richard H.

Driehaus Foundation and The John D. andCatherine T. MacArthur Foundation,Chicago.

Grodach, C. and A. Loukaitou-Sideris (2007)Cultural development strategies and urbanrevitalization. International Journal ofCultural Policy 13.4, 34970.

Grogan, D. and C. Mercer (1995) Thecultural planning handbook: an essential

Australian guide. Allen & Unwin,St Leonards, NSW.

Grundy, J. and J.-A. Boudreau (2008) Livingwith culture: creative citizenship practicesin Toronto. Citizenship Studies 12.4,34763.

Harvey, D. (1989) From managerialism toentrepreneurialism: the transformation

in urban governance in late capitalism.Geografiska Annaler 71B, 317.

Hesmondhalgh, D. (2007) The culturalindustries. Second edition, Sage, London.

Howkins, J. (2002) The creative economy:

how people make money from ideas.Penguin Books, New York.

Jackson, M.R., J. Herranz and F.Kabwasa-Green (2006) Cultural vitalityin communities: interpretation andindicators. Urban Institute, Washington,DC.

Jenkins, B. (2005) Torontos culturalrenaissance. Canadian Journal ofCommunication 30.2, 16986.

Jones, T., R. Henry and P. Robey (2009)Convergence centres: building capacity for

innovation. Toronto. Artscape, Toronto.Kong, L. and J. OConnor (2009) Creative

economies, creative cities: Asian-Europeanperspectives. Springer, Dordrecht.

Kretzman, J. and J. McKnight (1993)Building communities from the inside out.ACTA Publications, Chicago.

Landry, C. (2000) The creative city: a toolkitfor urban innovators. Comedia, London.

Long, J. (2009) Sustaining creativity in thecreative archetype: the case of Austin,

Texas. Cities 26.4, 21019.Markusen, A. (2004) Targeting occupationsin regional and community economicdevelopment. Journal of the AmericanPlanning Association 70.3, 25368.

Markusen, A. (2006) Urban development andthe politics of a creative class: evidencefrom the study of artists. Environment andPlanning A 38.10, 192140.

Markusen, A. and G. Schrock (2006)The artistic dividend: urban artisticspecialisation and economic development

implications. Urban Studies 43.10,166186.

Markusen, A. and A. Gadwa (2010). Arts andculture in urban or regional planning: areview and research agenda. Journal ofPlanning Education and Research 29.3,37991.

Markusen, A., G. Wassall, D. DeNatale andR. Cohen (2008) Defining the creativeeconomy: industry and occupationalapproaches. Economic Development

Quarterly 22.1, 2445.McCann, E. (2007). Inequality and politicsin the creative city-region: questions oflivability and state strategy. International

Journal of Urban and Regional Research

31.1, 18896.

18 Carl Grodach



19/19

McNulty, R. (2005) Mobilizing arts andcultural resources for communitydevelopment: a resource and workbook.Partners for Livable Communities,Washington, DC.

North, D. (1955) Location theory and regionaleconomic growth. Journal of Political

Economy 63.3, 24358.Peck, J. (2005) Struggling with the creative

class. International Journal of Urban andRegional Research 29.4, 74070.

Ponzini, D. and U. Rossi (2010) Becoming acreative city: the entrepreneurial mayor,network politics and the promise of anurban renaissance. Urban Studies 47.5,103757.

Pratt, A. (1997) The cultural industries

production system: a case study ofemployment change in Britain, 19841991.

Environment and Planning A 29.11,195374.

Pratt, A. (2005) Cultural industries and publicpolicy: an oxymoron? International

Journal of Cultural Policy 11.1, 3144.Reese, L. (2005) The planning-policy

connection in US and Canadian economicdevelopment. Environment and PlanningC: Government and Policy 24.4, 55373.

Romein, A. and J. Trip (2009) Key elementsof creative city development: anassessment of local policies in Amsterdamand Rotterdam. Unpublished paper.

Sasaki, M. (2010) Urban regeneration throughcultural creativity and social inclusion:rethinking creative city theory througha Japanese case study. Cities 27.1,S3S9.

Scott, A. (2000) The cultural economyof cities: essays on the geography ofimage-producing industries. Sage,

London.Scott, A. (2004) Cultural-products industries

and urban economic development:prospects for growth and marketcontestation in global context. Urban

Affairs Review 39.4, 46190.

Scott, A. (2006). Creative cities: conceptualissues and policy questions. Journal ofUrban Affairs 28.1, 117.

Scott, A. (2008) The social economy of themetropolis: cognitive-cultural capitalism

and the global resurgence of cities. OxfordUniversity Press, Oxford.

Silcox, D. (1974) Metropolitan Torontossupport of the arts: a study of the

problems with recommendationsfor future policies and procedures.Metro Toronto Government,Toronto.

Stern, M. and S. Seifert (2010) Culturalagglomeration and neighborhooddevelopment: an empirical investigationof Philadelphia 19972006. Journal of

Planning Education and Research 29.3,26279.

Storper, M. and M. Manville (2006)Behaviour, preferences and cities: urbantheory and urban resurgence. UrbanStudies 43.8, 124774.

Storper, M. and A.J. Scott (2009) Rethinkinghuman capital, creativity and urbangrowth. Journal of Economic Geography9.2, 14767.

Toronto Film Board (2007) Bounce back to

fast forward: strategic plan for Torontosscreen-based industry. City of Toronto,Toronto.

Toronto Unlimited (n.d.) Branding document[WWW document]. URL http://www.toronto.ca/unlimited/brand.htm(accessed 23 March 2012).

Vanolo, A. (2008) The image of the creativecity: some reflections on urban branding inTurin. Cities 25.6, 37082.

Whats Wrong Toronto (2009) TEDCOpetition [WWW document]. URL http://

whatswrongtoronto.com/ (accessed 10September 2009).

Zimmerman, J. (2008) From brew town tocool town: neoliberalism and the creativecity development strategy in Milwaukee.Cities 25.4, 23042.


International Journal of Urban and Regional Research

cultural economy planning in creative cities_discourses and practices

Documents