A brief discussion of Richard Florida's thesis on the "creative class" as it relates to the Louisville metro area

The fascinating discussion that follows is reprinted from the Louisville Restaurant Forum, and in my view is indicative of the best that the Internet can be.

"TP" and "M" are responding to my cross-posting of December 28th, in which I provided a possible answer to the question of why fine dining isn't available in certain Louisville-area neighborhoods (New Albany in particular) by applying selected themes found in Richard Florida's "Rise of the Creative Class."

Folks, this is a clinic conducted by two local professionals (both of whom I know). I suspect no more than half of New Albany's current sitting City Council could complete this reading without nodding off, and the Mayor ... well, fuhgiddabowtit.

Have a seat, pour a drink, and prepare to be challenged.

Note: M's responses are italicized for contrast only, and not for implied emphasis.

TP
Florida's book has been out long enough now (nearly two years, I believe) that there is emerging evidence that some of his findings are highly debatable. While I certainly am a fan of the creative class, I don't know that 1) it can be created by government policy, or 2) it is responsible for as much economic activity for which Florida gives it credit. I don't think any one theory can explain why restaurants thrive in a neighborhood or why the arts can succeed in some cities and not others - it seems to be a combination of factors, some intentional and some not, that ultimately come together to determine success or failure. I don't imply that we shouldn't proactively attempt to influence our local culture - that very influence is one of the contributing factors, and Florida's findings certainly indicate that.

M
Not long ago I had occasion to search some scholarly databases for responses to Florida's book, and I didn't come across anything I'd characterize as "emerging evidence that some of his findings are highly debatable." Now, this could be a purely linguistic point of disagreement. In a scholarly sense, I would interpret this assertion as a statement that there is evidence of flaws in his methods of gathering, analyzing, and presenting information.

But perhaps you meant to assert something different. Certainly, as with any novel theory (and his is quite innovative), there is debate about the public policy implications of his work, and there is debate about the weight he places on certain variables. On the other hand, he has gathered together a rich assortment of data, connected it in some quite interesting ways, and posed some very provocative policy responses.

Roger's discussion focuses on a part of the evidence that's relevant to his interest in New Albany, but for those who haven't read the book, I would suggest that the overarching theme is that economic development in an industrial economy is based on relatively immobile conglomerations of capital (i.e., factories), and that city/state economic development policies are still focused on creating incentives (through tax abatements, etc.) to spur development along those lines.

On the other hand, knowledge-based organizations are much more mobile, and can best be lured by developing not plant infrastructure, but by attracting and supporting a community of creative individuals with certain skills and attributes that are attractive to prospective employers. Luring and holding those folks (the creative class) requires different public policy responses than offering tax breaks to manufacturers.

As Florida looked around the country, he saw pockets of economic growth in the knowledge industries that were also associated with very strong creative communities, and his analysis suggests that in many of those cases the creative community arose first, and was the attraction that drew the firms that created the economic growth. This is a classic chicken/egg question. There's plenty of reason to believe that wealthy communities are better able than poor communities to support creative classes. But in a knowledge-based economy, Florida would assert, entrepreneurs will take their operations where the talent is, rather than build plants and try to bring the talent to them.

In general, I think economists agree with this model, and economic development professionals increasingly agree. Talk to those people, and they'll tell you that knowledge-based businesses thinking of locating in Louisville want to know things about educational attainment, quality of life, etc., because those factors determine whether an appropriate workforce is available.

The problem for any community is how to forge an appropriate response to a changing economy. Communities that find good responses flourish; those that don't stagnate.

In Louisville, I think we see responses that suggest a misguided response. Dave Armstrong, for instance, certainly had a half-baked understanding of Florida's theory. But the decision to create an "entertainment district" based around things like a Hard Rock Cafe and a TGI Friday's was, on the face of it, absurd and doomed. (Another wrong-headed response was J. Bruce Miller's drive for an NBA team, which is thankfully, at least for the moment, moribund). On the other hand, the First Friday trolley hop was a fine idea, and many community leaders and businesses have made strong commitments to supporting artistic and creative life in the city; those initiatives do have promise.

As for Roger's initial post, and Jay's response, I think comparisons between New Albany and the Highlands are of dubious value. Apart from political boundaries (and the river, of course), it's most useful to consider New Albany and the Highlands as neighborhoods in the larger metro urban area. The forces that drive development in a given neighborhood include costs, accessibility, etc., and the wealth of the neighborhood itself. I'm not convinced that - as a neighborhood - the Highlands is at all diverse. It looks to me like a wealthy, white, well-educated neighborhood, populated almost exclusively by professionals. By contrast, my own neighborhood, Old Louisville, is among the most diverse in the Metro, in terms of most class and race determinants, and yet it doesn't support the kind of dining options one finds in the Highlands. The South End, another very diverse place, supports a bare handful of truly notable places. If restaurant development were associated with class/race diversity, one would expect to see quite different patterns of growth than we see in Louisville.

I suggest that most savvy restaurateurs want to locate in the sweet spots where they have relatively low rents combined with easy access (either directly, by proximity, or indirectly, through transportation infrastructure) to relatively affluent prospective customers. Downtown New Albany has the low rents, but probably not the affluent customers, and is certainly not perceived as convenient by Louisvillians (wrongly, in my view); if the customers were there, restaurateurs would be wise to move into some of the vacant spaces in the downtown area. But the wealth is spreading in the Knobs area and in the residential ring around New Albany (up through Sellersburg, for instance). And there, we do see an increasing number of restaurants (witness the Bristol buying Sam's, and the success of Rockwall, Onion Tea Room, Los Indios, and the Blue Peppermill).

Part of the problem in New Albany is that chef-owned places seldom build new; they need to rent or purchase already existing spaces. In that regard, the Onion is a classic case: a restaurant located in a converted residential dwelling.

I predict what we'll see in New Albany over the next few years will be increasing growth along those lines. But the variables that drive where that growth comes will be fairly straightforward: income levels, rents, and transportation infrastructure.

TP
There have been numerous questions raised (admittedly by the conservative press) about Florida's findings. I don't believe I'm questioning his methodology. In fact, I don't recall any heavy scientific thought taking place in his work. I question his conclusions: that you can change a city by diversifying its population in a marginal manner. I think it would be nearly impossible to change the culture of a community of size - the sheer numbers of "creative" folks it would take to move the dial in a city the size of Louisville is too large. Perhaps Paducah, which I suppose is 5% the size of our metro, has made some progress with their community by focusing on attracting artists. I can't think of another in our area that has benefited from the Florida findings. I think a city grows from putting in place a combination of attractive attributes: schools, arts, amenities - quality of life issues. I'll be the first to cheer for the creative class (as a former musician, board chair of Actors Theatre, former president of the Jazz Society, etc), but I think it is a specious economic argument that this sub-sector of society can change a city. You identified the chicken and egg question, and I think that is the question that Florida didn't answer. Did tech companies move to San Francisco because of its creative class, or is the creative class in San Francisco because of the jobs available there (a narrow example for illustrative purposes)?

Sadly, regardless of whether one subscribes to Florida's thinking, Louisville is far behind in attracting knowledge-based jobs. We're great at $8-per-hour call center gigs, but we can't seem to find out how to get corporate headquarters of exciting businesses to come here. Perhaps, again, it's the chicken and egg question - maybe we don't have enough entrepreneurs in our population to start the businesses that become important to our economy.

Hey, maybe that Florida guy makes sense after all...

M
Thanks for the clarification.

"Conservative press" covers multitudes, but I assume you're referring to conservative commentators and columnists, as opposed to other scholars and academics. The "conservative press" includes both thoughtful commentators and axe-grinding imbeciles, so it's hard to respond without specific citations. But Florida seems to use quite standard economic and demographic evidence and analysis, and I haven't come across much contention about that.

To belabor the point, I think you're again misconstruing his argument when you attribute to him the claim that "you can change a city by diversifying its population in a marginal manner."

Rather, he's making this quite straightforward argument:

1. Cities engage in a variety of economic development activities, including zoning, regulation, and incentives.

2. Those activities are based on notions about what methods are most likely to achieve a given set of desired goals.

3. The practice of most cities at present is to use incentives to attract the kinds of businesses you describe as "$8-per-hour call center gigs," or, more optimistically, $15-per-hour assembly gigs.

4. Many thinkers believe that these kinds of business are not on the path to sustainable economic prosperity.

5. The kinds of businesses that show promise over the next few decades are knowledge-based businesses that are quite mobile. They don't rely on proximity to, say, iron ore or other commodities, but they do require a creative, educated workforce.

6. Smart-businesses often locate where the creative, educated workforce is, rather than locating elsewhere and trying to attract them.

7. Since everyone (except the more dull-witted libertarians) recognizes that cities have a role to play in economic development, the question is, what choices can cities make to effectively attract smart-business?

8. One solution is to create conditions that will attract the appropriate workforce.

9. Those conditions include attributes like tolerance and a range of entertainment and recreational opportunities.

10. As part of their approach to economic development, cities should take steps to create a climate of tolerance and to develop a range of entertainment and recreational opportunities geared toward the people they want to attract.

It goes without saying that no single change is going to transform a city in a hurry. But over time, a sustained pattern of choices creates the city of the future. Convention simply accepts the kinds of knee-jerk economic development activities that lure call centers, and if we want to wind up a city of call centers, we can certainly proceed down that path.

But it's also possible to make incremental steps in a different direction that may lead to different outcomes.I don't know what Florida had to say about San Francisco, but I think most of his analysis focuses on other cities that have shown quite remarkable growth over the last 15 years or so, and if those cities are indicators, then it certainly would be worthwhile for Louisville to experiment meaningfully with some of Florida's ideas. (By the way, it's certainly true that San Francisco was an ultra-tolerant, ultra-hip community long before the technology boom, as a couple of generations of beatniks and hippies would be happy to attest.)

It's worth noting that at one time, Louisville had creative leadership. Think for instance, of Charlie Farnsley, a remarkable mayor and proponent of the Louisville Orchestra, and the First Edition recordings; or of the folks who fostered the Kentucky Center (and, for that matter, Sixth Avenue); or, to give Abramson his due, the push to bring the Presbyterian Church USA to Louisville. And I would submit that the extreme park is actually a smart response to changing times and interests. Observers of the local scene can draw their own conclusions about the directions the current leadership is pursuing, but as you observe, the city doesn't have much of a track record for attracting exciting businesses, and has had little success in stemming the local brain drain.

TP
I think the point you make about a sustained effort is the one that I find the most important, but also perhaps the most unachievable except in the rarest of circumstances. That is my primary argument with any theory such as Florida's that is extremely difficult to implement. It seems that he has measured cities that, for whatever reason, exhibit the characteristics of a creative economy and reported on them, but I think it is nearly impossible for a community to implement the sort of change that would be necessary to become a model of that vision.

Having said that, I don't disagree at all that to aspire to what we all know would be a more vibrant community with a more interesting blend of residents and workers is an admirable thought. I wholeheartedly support such efforts (such as the "Keep Louisville Weird" campaign). I do have concerns, however, that the leadership in the city is not able to undertake visionary activities on a grand scale. I concur with your examples of some out of the ordinary projects that have been produced (I'll add Waterfront Park to the list), but geez, it's a short list for a community of this size with so many resources.

Thanks for the discussion!

M
Yes, it's an interesting dilemma for the city, and you're quite right that sustained effort and continuity of vision is the (unfortunately improbable) key.

One of the major obstacles to success, I think, is persuading the arts community that it actually shares interests with the business community. In the past, there's been a tendency for the arts community to distrust the business forces, which is a bit misguided in view of the obvious fact that hardly a single arts organization in Louisville would survive on ticket sales alone without the generous support of area businesses.

Anyway, let's hope that next year the city moves in positive directions. Thanks for the discussion.