Sustaining creativity in the creative archetype: The case of Austin, Texas

Abstract

Recently, the popular literature on creative industries and the urban creative landscape has been largely dominated by the work of one scholar, Richard Florida. The popularity of Richard Florida’s work has led to a zealous implementation of his creative class thesis by many city officials, policymakers, and urban planners. Recent studies have investigated the impact of creative city implementation in previously working class and industrial cities, but given Florida’s popularity and influence, it is also necessary to evaluate the sustainability of cities touted as creative success stories by Florida and others. This article examines the case of Austin, Texas, seeking to evaluate Florida’s model city in light of recent empirical research. This research suggests that while Austin has witnessed impressive economic prosperity, the “externalities” or unforeseen challenges associated with creative development are equally evident. Further, this research suggests that previously overlooked socio-cultural challenges (e.g. loss of urban cultural character, sense of detachment, over-commercialization) in Austin threaten to potentially undermine the sustainability of this mode of development.

Introduction

Since the publication of Rise of the Creative Class in 2002, the work of Richard Florida has been a favorite target of urban scholarly critics. As Florida’s creative class thesis gained mainstream popularity, early contrarians voiced concerns of elitism (Maliszewski, 2004) and circular logic (Malanga, 2004). These were soon followed by a mix of economists, urban planners, and geographers who took issue with Florida’s anecdotal methodology, vague classification, shaky analysis, and ‘pop sociology’ (Glaeser, 2004, Peck, 2005, Markusen and Schrock, 2006, Scott, 2006, Rantisi et al., 2006; and others). Most recently, Geografiska Annaler B featured several articles analyzing Florida’s strategies for the attraction of creative talent (Houston et al., 2008), his assumptions of causality in economic growth (Stam et al., 2008), and his ambiguous coupling of “creativity” and “culture industries” (Pratt, 2008). Although many of these recent studies carefully critique the creative class thesis, there remains a consistent judgment of Florida’s work that falls just short of vitriolic, portraying his policy prescriptions as “neo-liberal snake oil” (Peck, 2005), his anecdotal musings as “yuppie self-indulgence” (Zimmerman, 2008), and his advocates as displaying the “heady passion of a religious movement” (Kotkin and Siegel, 2004). Given such damming criticism, it is difficult to imagine that policy makers, urban planners, or city governance would ever consider implementing the Floridian “creativity script.” In popular media, however, the outpouring of praise has squelched any mention of scholarly criticism. Among city planners and entrepreneurs, Florida has achieved near rockstar status, “attracting the type of attention usually garnered by salacious fiction or celebrity tell-alls” (Dreher, 2002, p. 1). Rise of the Creative Class has received accolades from sources as varied as The Financial Times (2008) and The Colbert Report (2007). Florida’s most recent work, Who’s Your City, touted celebrity endorsements from the likes of Cybill Shepherd and Chef Mario Batali.

Since Rise of the Creative Class, Florida has published three new books: Florida, 2005a, Florida, 2005b, Florida, 2008—the latter of which has become an international best seller. These recent works add to a Floridian creative canon that now includes six books, more than a dozen articles, and countless editorials, guest columns, blogs, lectures, and interviews (many of which are easily accessed through his flashy website: http://www.creativeclass.com). As some have noted, Florida’s popularity has allowed him to create an industry out of his own work (Gibson and Kong, 2005), and it seems that a “new-found cult of creativity” is facilitating the introduction of a paradigm shift in urban planning policy (Peck, 2005).

While urban scholars continue to tease out statistical data and drive critical holes in the creative class literature, cities throughout North America and now abroad (see Vanolo, 2008, Houston et al., 2008, Stam et al., 2008) continue a zealous implementation of Florida-inspired policies, and the creative class has gained recognition as a highly influential demographic.¹ Given the apparent disconnect between academic opinion and popular support, it is evident that extensive empirical scholarship is needed to better comprehend the effects of the “creative city” phenomenon. This essay is not the first to appeal for further investigation. Most notably, Rantisi et al., 2006) pointed to several possible areas for future exploration, including “a clear understanding of the term ‘creativity,”’ the “opportunities and challenges” confronting a range of workers in creative cities, and “prospects for smaller cities or rural settings and for contexts in the Global South” (1795-6). Adding to these suggestions, other avenues have been explored empirically, most notably the investigation of the “politics of city regionalism and livability” in the creative city (McCann, 2007, p. 188), and the possible consequences of “downtown-based property-led development” in blue collar-turned-creative cities (Zimmerman, 2008, p. 230). Following the example of Vanolo, 2008, Zimmerman, 2008, this paper seeks to illuminate the far-reaching effects of creative city development through empirical analysis. But where these scholars chose to investigate the active promotion of creative strategies in industrial cities (Turin in the case of Vanolo; Milwaukee in the case of Zimmerman), this study critically examines Florida’s model for creative success: Austin, Texas. In doing so, this article considers the recent work of creative class critics, but largely seeks to analyze the situation of Austin in light of Florida’s own scholarship. While Austin has experienced many of the recognized “externalities”² (i.e. negative side-effects) of creative development, research suggests that there are further socio-cultural challenges present. A vocal portion of Austin’s population has expressed serious concerns over the loss of cultural character, sense of detachment, and social polarization associated with rapid growth and landscape transformation. This paper suggests that, despite their assumingly intangible nature, these cultural expressions may lead to very real consequences for creative cities. Ironically, these problems seem most evident in the city that is considered the greatest creative success story, Austin. Based upon the case of Austin, this research questions whether Floridian strategies for creative development are as sustainable as their popularity implies.