[MEGA-CORRECTION: Dear reader, I'm a dumbass. This event is on Thursday, June 18. If it makes you feel any better, I biked halfway across the city myself hoping to attend, only to realize my own folly. I might have realized and posted on error earlier had I not been working three nonstop back to back freelance gigs in the creative economy. Plus, as mentioned, I'm a dumbass. Keep those cards and letters coming!]
Richard Florida, academic and author of “The Rise of the Creative Class,” created quite a local stir when he moved to Toronto a couple of years ago. While many people—particularly city planners—have found Florida’s vision of creativity as economic cure-all appealing, there are others (here, here, and here to name a few) who express skepticism about his ideas and the way they are presented. (To be clear, I consider myself one of those skeptics--see related pieces on art payments and arts access here and here.)
Fuse Magazine and activists collective Creative Class Struggle are holding a Town Hall to talk about the real effects of the Creative City model currently produced in planning trends in communities across the city and globally. This conversation is intended to demystify this celebration and use of “creativity” in economic development, land use planning, arts programming and community development. We are responding to these recent trends, popularized by urban researchers like Richard Florida.
The Creative City logic, advertises places of innovation, style and interactivity as places that will attract both business and the “creative class” – urban professionals and culture workers. This perspective, critiqued by some academics and policy makers for its vagueness and others for privileging certain types of jobs, neighbourhoods and lifestyles at the expense of others is increasingly controversial. In this Town Hall, artists, activist, community workers, teachers and professors will be brought together to examine the realities of living under this policy paradigm. We will ask: what are the effects of these policies on the livelihoods of ordinary people? Who benefits from creative city planning that is meant to build money making cities in a time of cuts to vital services such as schools and important social spaces for “ordinary” people such as community centres, and pools. What happens to the “non-creative” workers in this script?
The panel’s goal is to address topics of race, class and gender, within the framework of the 'creative class’, exploring how these policies celebrate a select group of glorified yet precarious professions and how cities are being re-structured and re-branded as money-makers, rather than places that offer secure livelihoods for their residents.
Though I’m not sure what might come out of it, I’m glad this town hall is happening. The only downfall might be the Toronto-centrism; while I was in Hamilton this weekend, I noticed there is a lot of hope there for “creative economy” style revitalization, and the same was noted when I went to Niagara Falls last year. Still, I guess we have to start somewhere.
This event takes place at 1277 Bloor St W. Doors open at 6:30pm, with the panel running 7pm to 8:30pm. A launch party for Fuse Magazine follows.
Image of Richard Florida from globeandmail.com
I do not understand why the artist community rejects the Florida model. Florida argues that artists should be appreciated for their contributions to urban life and his writings have influenced municipalities to recognize artists.
ReplyDeleteWhether or not cities they pay their artists, remains to be said and is another issue.
Hi Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteI don't think it's fair to say that all artists oppose Florida. Or even a majority. Sorry if I implied that -- figures just aren't available. Though I'm sure they would be interesting.
What has been critiqued about Florida's theories is that it praises artists on one level--the level on which they encourage economic growth, up real estate prices, etc.--remember tony Yorkville was once an artist's hangout!--while actually avoiding the matter of getting artists (and many others) adequate wages, affordable housing, stable work spaces, adequate daycare for dependents, and so on.
What can also be critiqued about Florida's theories is that it encourages the proliferation of work situations that might seem glamorous to the outsider--like freelancing, which predominates in creative fields--but which are in fact quite precarious, stressful and, it could be argued, potentially unhealthy situations for workers and their families.
In this way, an unthoughtful application of Florida's "creative class" ideal simply encourages the disintegration of the many gains that unions made through the years in many fields with regards to job security, pensions, paid holidays, pay schedules, and the like. Those gains are of course already being eroded by recession-pointing CEOs and city heads--but the creative class idea can work in sync with these tendencies to glamorize the loss of these individual and societal benefits.
Does any of that make more sense? There's many ways to discuss Florida's theories, but that's just a couple of ways that come to mind.
yesss! I am very happy to hear this Town Hall is happening. I wish I could be there. I am a creative person, but very skeptical of Florida. I also worry a bit about a city that falls to its knees for this guy. Reading about him from the uk, I feel very protective of Toronto. What would he think if his cleaners went creative and mismatched all his socks?! I am glad to know there is discussion!!
ReplyDeleteThanks Sarah -- I hope to report on the event -- but was foiled this evening when I realized I GOT THE DATE WRONG, mostly because I'm a dumbass. Anyway, the post has been corrected and fingers crossed for me actually understanding the calendar on Thursday.
ReplyDeleteIs it not not odd that this Toronto Free that was first gallery in the Bloor - Lan -- the first creative type industry that ushered in new places like Mercer Union and that cafe -- is hosting this event? It seems funny but also like they are feeling guilty or something about what they have done (that they think they have pushed somebody out), and that they are proving Richard Florida to a tee and don't like it.
ReplyDeleteHi Anonymous --
ReplyDeleteI can understand where your observations are coming from.
When I've posed these types of questions in the past to self-identified politically active gallery owners, the general answer I get is "there's ways to open a gallery and work towards more equity/justice/sensitivity to the community and there's ways to open a gallery without any care for all these things. I'm trying to do the former."
I also think that the best part of the point that art-based critics of Florida et al are trying to make is that in the current city setup, yes, when a gallery opens that "pushing out" is likely happen -- increased rents, less affordable housing, etc. But what would it look like, they suggest, if we had better ways of prioritizing equity and housing for everyone in the city? It's a worthwhile question, something worth aiming for whether you're a gallery owner or not.
On the other hand, I hear you on some people's lack of self-reflexivity--or in other words, a tendency to see one's own subculture as the only truly "authentic" one. It's an attitude that satirists like the Onion have quite effectively skewered in items like "Sometimes I Feel Like I'm The Only One Trying To Gentrify This Neighborhood" (http://www.theonion.com/content/node/51852) and "Resident of three years decries neighbourhood's recent gentrification" - (http://www.theonion.com/content/node/31621).