The Creative City part 2

Part 2 – Making it Work: a paraphrase of Antonini Simeti’s essay, The Creative City: Moving form Ideas to Planning Practice

This all sounds great. But in order to make it work, we have to understand the complexities involved. Patting ourselves on the back for having a good idea is dangerous. Let’s think about this carefully and move through the process with the level of awareness and discernment it deserves

First, people are generally resistant to change and wary of risk. Risk implies the possibility of failure, and failure doesn’t sit well in political or bureaucratic circles. The creative city asks not only that a new idea be implemented, but that a whole new way of working be implemented. Who wants to take that on? Persuasive arguments relentlessly applied are necessary, but so are ways of implementing them, and explaining them clearly, in the face of resistance. And there will be lots of resistance.

Organization by those involved – local politicians and advisory boards – is key. Nothing will get done if duties and timelines aren’t absolutely clear. If an advisory board is employed, what is its stated function? Is it simply direction or will it, can it, be involved in implementation?

Given that this is an entirely new way of addressing a problem, old ideas may not work. This is where some degree of risk is necessary. Without a centrally mandated set of prescriptions, people will naturally fall back on old ways of doing things like looking for sources of funding or working within the same old framework. What are realistic expectations for getting things done? How long will each initiative take? Who should be involved? Should the community of decision-makers be widened or will a centralized decision-making structure work?

The creative city concept is influenced strongly by Richard Florida’s book, “The Rise of the Creative Class” which, while an effective document, has to be considered in light of its inherent class bias. Social equity must be stressed if a creative city concept can be implemented effectively over time. Focus on a creative class argument can create perceptions that run counter to issues of poverty, crime, and lack of jobs, economic development and planning needs of a community. The fact that the creative city is not exclusionary and does, in fact, address these issues doesn’t mean that people will naturally see it that way unless effort is put into demonstrating the facts and the intentions.

One way to address the social equity issue is to include marginalized communities in the process and not just as a marketing strategy. Those working in sectors not traditionally considered part of the creative sector must also be involved and efforts must be made to demonstrate how their work is, or can be, creative. Creativity means autonomy and most people want a say in how their lives are structured. This is crucial and an examination of a city’s tradition of social and cultural openness is needed.

The logistical complexity of including a varied group of participants in the decision-making process can be daunting, but also complicating the process is the variety of backgrounds and values. References like “long-haired public artist types” or “suits from city hall” point to real problems in listening and working together. These prejudices need to exposed and dealt with from the beginning of the process.

A creative city approach is not a quick fix, but a complex reframing of planning practice that requires time. Immediate, highly visible results are not the answer and this is a huge problem for a lot of people. Long term planning is essential and this falls outside of traditional economic practice, where it makes more sense to attract corporations that provide jobs rather than amenities that attract the people (ie. creative) that high-value companies are looking for. This means that new measures for success must be found.

Any city can use the creative city initiative to define or re-define itself, creating in the process, clearly identifiable assets that can produce a competitive edge and attract new people and investment. It can be used as a tool for assessment of strengths and identity and for understanding where economic potentials lie.

It must be remembered that a prescriptive model runs contrary to the ideas of the movement. Planners need to know their city deeply and understand its unique strengths and weaknesses. Implementing an inappropriate economic agenda can do more harm than good. Having said that, it should be obvious that a creative approach, which clearly supports the emerging economy, has to be taken into account and be part of the process. How that happens will change from city to city.