Examining the “Creative Class”

In our class’s discussion of visions of our city, we have discussed so far Moses’ perspective of an automobile-centric city and Jacobs’ four important points of a bustling city: a multifunctional district, short blocks, mixed-age and conditioned buildings, and a dense population. However, though we often credit Jacobs for halting Moses’ vision of an overdeveloped city, she did not herself offer a tenable answer on how to approach the potential problems of a growing urban center.

In Brian Tochterman’s “Theorizing Neoliberal Urban Development,” Richard Florida posited an answer to modern urban advancement, one that advocated for the “creative class.” According to Florida, a city must be fertile ground for creative people to thrive, and it must have three components: “technology, talent, and tolerance” (Tochterman, 75). The creative class, apparently, would be the integral aspect to revive society and the economy, specifically in a “trickle-down effect.” Florida quantified his theory by using a “Tolerance Index,” which measured diversity in a community and was used to compare innovation. This theory piqued my interest and I wondered just how applicable this could be in a real world scenario. Upon further research into Florida’s beliefs, author Noah Smith writes in “Rise of the Creative Class Worked a Little Too Well” that there is some direct correlation between the success of cities such as Austin and Pittsburgh and the creative demographic they appeal to. However, Florida has begun to pivot slightly as he acknowledges that cities that emphasize creative skill and knowledge are places of distinct inequality (Smith). For example, these “hubs” such as New York City and San Francisco see astronomical rent rates. As a result, those in the service industry who cannot sustain living in such areas have to move out (Smith). It is important to acknowledge the repercussions that each action will have on a city. Because Florida sought to prioritize the interests of the elite “creative class,” all other people in the service industry are neglected. Similarly, in Angotti’s New York for Sale, zoning served to “separate the working class from the ‘better’ classes (p. 63). Thus, this practice codified a disparity between Manhattan estate and outer borough land.

Engineers, entrepreneurs, and other visionaries such as those in Silicon Valley have greatly contributed to large cities and the nation’s economy; however, we must not undermine the role of those in other professions, especially in our post-industrial service economy. The future of an urban community should not be based solely on one group of people, whether that be the “creative class” or a group of public officials formulating legislation for an entire population. For this reason, Florida’s ideas cannot effectively work to foster urban prosperity. Promoting one class while disregarding the needs of others cannot yield a healthy city. We must incorporate the interests of everyone, with the goal of achieving an egalitarian society.

Works Cited

Angotti, Tom. “The Real Estate Capital of the World.” New York for Sale: Community Planning Confronts Global Real Estate, MIT Press, 2011, p. 37-80.

Smith, Noah. “Rise of the Creative Class Worked a Little Too Well.” Bloomberg, 27 Oct. 2017, bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-10-27/rise-of-the-creative-class-worked-a-little-too-well. Accessed 20 February 2018.

Tochterman, Brian. “Theorizing Neoliberal Urban Development: A Genealogy from Richard Florida to Jane Jacobs.” Radical History Review, 112 (Winter 2012), p. 65-87.