According to Florida, the key to urban success lies in attracting certain groups of people, such as artists, scientists and twenty-something singles. Florida insists that this can be accomplished through nursing a specific type of culture within a city:
March 22,5: This research divides workers into three socio-economic classes — highly skilled knowledge, professional, and creative workers, and less skilled and lower paid blue-collar and service workers — and takes into the account the wages and housing costs borne by each.
On close inspection, talent clustering provides little in the way of trickle-down benefits. Its benefits flow disproportionately to more highly-skilled knowledge, professional and creative workers whose higher wages and salaries are more than sufficient to cover more expensive housing in these locations.
While less-skilled service and blue-collar workers also earn more money in knowledge-based metros, those gains disappear once their higher housing costs are taken into account.
Florida himself, in his role as an editor at The Atlantic, admitted last month what his critics, including myself, have said for a decade: In his thesis, the model cities of the future are precisely those, such as San Francisco and Seattle, that have become hubs of highly educated migrants, technology, and high-end business services.
That plan, though, has been less than successful in many of the old rust belt cities that once made up much of his client base. Perhaps even more galling to these cities, Florida has turned decidedly negative in his outlook on many of those cities—now looking remarkably gullible—that once made up much of his client base.
This is not something I take lightly: It is not a simple issue, but one that is multifaceted and complex; it requires real research and nuanced understanding to get to the nub of it.
So where does that leave us? If we know that the skills, knowledge, and creativity that power economic growth does not lift all boats, what do we do?
Stop investing in skills? Stop the flow of people and jobs back to the urban core—which has not only made many cities safer and better places, but helped increase productivity and innovation for the nation as a whole?
Encourage people to tear up more of the environment as they build ever-more-sprawling suburbs? It strikes me that both authors are latching on to somewhat cartoonish versions of their opponents arguments.The Fox Cities Chamber of Commerce is excited to celebrate September as Wisconsin Chamber of Commerce Month as.
Among the most pervasive, and arguably pernicious, notions of the past decade has been that the “creative class” of the skilled, educated and hip would remake and revive American cities.
The map below shows the geography of the creative class back in , while the table shows the ten metros where the creative class made up the highest and lowest concentrations of the workforce. creative industries, and the wooing of the ‘creative class’.
Creative city ideas can be understood in the context of two major economic shifts. The first is concern on the part of cities to survive, and even take advantage of, “changing conditions in the global.
Since , Press Enter has been providing internet service, and computer repair to Western Wisconsin and the Twin Cities Metro area. The Creative Class generates new ideas and products that cause creative centers to thrive.
Those include San Francisco, Seattle, Washington D.C., Boston, Denver, and Austin. The cities that are less tolerant of people and new ideas do less well.