Rating: 
Summary: Ambivalently relevant
Review: After receiving some insightful comments I decided to revise my review for better clarity and focus since this book seems (inexplicably to me) to continue to be taken seriously.
This book can be, and has been, read in various ways. Some people seem to think it is simply 'descriptive' (the 'way things actually are'); Florida's continuing project, however, is one that is more 'prescriptive' in the sense he wants to give people practical advice to 'revitalize' economies. Now, this book is certainly descriptive. But the question becomes: is it a good or bad description? What this book is not, however, is 'theoretical' or 'analytic'. As I claimed in my prior review, any undergraduate student of sociology could easily call into question the merits of this book as an 'analytical' piece of argumentation.
This is not, however, a critique of Florida's statistics--they are not at issue. As far as I know, those statistics are robust. What is at issue is whether Florida is justified in drawing the conclusions he does from them. While I am sympathetic to what he is trying to say, I don't feel that, in the end, he is justified for saying them on the basis of any cogent or sound arguments in his book.
My main objection is that Florida doesn't have a rigorous, analytically useful definition of 'creativity', which he seems to confuse with 'innovation'. If we start by thinking of artistic creativity, technological innovation, and theoretical science all under some monolithic thing called 'creativity', we ignore the vast literature in psychology that has dealt with the nature of creativity since Margaret Boden's classic work through (what is more interesting) Csikszentmihalyi (who, I think, has more interesting practical suggestions than Florida).
Because Florida's thesis is one that specifically wants to link creativity with the economy, something in the way of a theory telling us how the two things are linked seems to be a conditio sine qua non. (Incidentally, a similar problem befalls Joas' own theoretical 'The Creativity of Action', so I'm not saying that social theorists are automatically immune from the kinds of problems Florida faces.)
Statistical correlations in themselves reveal nothing. Statistics require interpretation. The question then becomes: are Florida's interpreations either justified or plausible?
But Florida himself says that "in retrospect, I could probably have written this book using no statistics at all. ... Many of my arguments could have been made as convincingly just by telling stories from my field notes and letting my human subjects and observations speak for themselves". This is perhaps the baldest statement of Florida's philosophical immaturity and/or irresponsibility.
As far as I can tell, Florida basically superimposes his notion of 'creativity' (or 'innovation') onto a modern liberal ideology of the Emersonian 'self-reliant' individual who, as Thoreau famously said, 'marches to the beat of his own drum'. This is the ethical point that Florida is trying to drive home, which is neither unique nor particularly interesting in itself. Of course there are people who 'go against the trend' and want to 'set trends' instead of 'follow' them. This drive for individuality might certainly mean that these people are 'creative' in a sense, but that sense is so vacuous and general as to be analytically useless (or, in other words, not everyone who wants to 'be an individual' is 'creative' in any interesting or analytically useful sense).
From this idea of 'creative people', Florida proceeds to make claims like 'creative people want to live in diverse, open, and tolerant communities'. Of course these kinds of communities not only attract individualistic people, but also foster an outpouring of creativity. Locke knew this in the 17th century; more famously, Mill knew it in the 19th century; and the Catholic Church has known it since the time of St. Augustine's polemics against the Donatists. As far as this point goes, what Florida says is banal.
So suggestions like 'creative people like tolerant communities' aren't particularly stunning. Whether it is from a genuine ignorance of the history of political and social thought or from an attempt to disguise what is commonplace under new vocabulary as a 'new discovery' I do not know. It is also for this reason that one might have reason to be suspicious of the various ways in which people are trying to 'verify' Florida's characterization of the 'creative class'.
In the natural sciences, it was Heisenberg who showed that one and the same observation can be 'correctly' described by one or more (possibly contradictory) theories. This is even obviously more true in the so-called social and psycholgical sciences. When one looks at a social or psychological phenomenon from within one set of terms and vocabulary, what gets observed (the object) gets channeled into those terms. This is not the same as saying that one sees what one chooses to see. Obviously, I can believe that my neighbors are monkeys, but that doesn't mean that they will actually be monkeys when I look at them. But if I decide in advance that they are antisocial people, I can interpret the fact I never see them during the day as being characteristic of their antisociality. Of course, they may be people who work at night and sleep during the day. Neither explanation excludes the other. My neighbors might both sleep during the day and also be antisocial. Of course, further 'research' would help me to discover all this about them, but that is not the point of this example. The point is that 'empirical verification' of the kind of thing Florida is trying to say is one that is not unique to his own work, but he shows no real concern either for dispelling some people's (such as myself) qualms about it nor, for that matter, any awareness that the problem exists in the first place if he believes that you can prove a point by telling ancedotal stories and reflecting, musing, and hum-hawing about things and expecting others to believe your thoughts deserve serious attention because of the letters "Ph.D."
This is not the place to engage in a questioning of what it means to have a social science, and my point is not to do so. Note again (in the quotation above) that Florida thinks he could have 'argued' (in scare quotes) his point without numbers. That point is to define a new social 'class'. Neither is it the place for me to argue in detail about why I think Florida's definition of his 'creative class' fails as a useful analytic category (anyone who has read Weber would, I think, agree with me even if we don't agree with Weber). Now, one must either have a high estimation of one's own genius and originality (Wittgenstein could get away with this) or a great deal of naivete to attempt such a thing without acknowledging the prior history involved in the very notion of a social 'class'. (I will say, however, that it is entirely one thing to talk about the ways in which some people behave and describe social trends on the one hand and then, on the other, to form on the basis of these descriptions, the notion of a social *class*. People keep saying that interviews with so-called 'creative people', etc, are 'verifying' what Florida says about the 'creative class'. It is one thing to find characteristics of creativity in people and quite another to say that there is something that can (therefore) be called a 'creative class'.)
Certainly, this does not stop this book from being useful to, e.g., local and regional economic planners. I never wanted to say this book is not useful. But as Florida himself notes, anything can be useful, depending on the attitude and end one has in mind.
In short, I would say that the book is certainly 'provocative' in that it raises interesting questions to be thought out and perhaps researched farther. Certainly some of what Florida says is true. But one can have true premises and reason to a false conclusion; one can also have a true conclusion but reason invalidly from false premises. Florida does both of these.
As other reviewers have noted, the data Florida presents is interesting in itself. But reading this book for the data would confine you to the appendices. For that reason I'm somewhat at a loss as to whom this book might be relevant. It doesn't really merit serious attention as a social theory; I'm not aware of any really earthshattering statistical analysis that might be of interest to quantitative sociologists; and the lack of sound reasoning makes this book inappropriate for general readers who are not already predisposed to believe anything they see in print merely for the fact that someone decided to publish this book (in other words, you'll be thoroughly convinced that Florida is right if you already agree with him, but if you're skeptical, there's nothing in the way of sound argumentation to convince you that he's right).
Rating: 
Summary: for those who follow trends and those who make them...
Review: For regional economist and planner Richard Florida, the future of our cities are about harnessing the technological and social trends that are allowing larger numbers of people in the creative class to prosper as they become more innovative in the production, distribution and consumption of goods and services. This book is of particular importance to the urban context because it identifies closely with a particular location, culture and lifestyle and it values the diversity found within a particular area. Florida's analysis also seeks to understand the new social reality that technology has created, even as it has redefined our relationships to work and society. It is also optimistic in that it anticipates the changes that innovation, creativity and technology will bring to cities, which will result in a more economically competitive and socially diverse region. While this book will be most relevant for upwardly mobile individuals and communities and those who cater to them, it does not adequately address the growing disparities between the haves and the have-nots. However, it is a valuable contribution to the growing body of literature that bridge popular culture and economic trends. Recommended
Rating: 
Summary: A good gift for rural planners and Chamber-of-Commerce types
Review: I live in a small rural town in northeastern PA -- close enough to NYC and Philadelphia that some brave souls actually commute to the cities, but still mostly farmland and summer camps. In the past few years, there's been a conversation going on about how to ensure the economic health of the area. Some folks belive that we need to lure factories and manufacturing plants to provide jobs, even if they bring along adverse quality-of-life effects. Others (like me) hold the viewpoint that if we can maintain a pleasant quality of life, creative people will be attracted to the area who bring in cashflow without concomitant high ecological impacts - for example, consultants, artists, writers, and the like.
This book basically makes my case, and backs it up with data. I'm planning on buying a copy for every board member of the local Economic Development Corporation and the honchos at the Chamber of Commerce.
Rating:
Summary: Very interesting--surprisingly informative and worthwhile.
Review: I think many of the preceding reviews provide insight on this book: the argument is a tough-sell, it relies on generalizations, and it doesn't get everything right. However, I don't this book is meant to be a final statement, but rather the beginning. Taken in that light, Florida's work has great importance for cities and governments as we try to lay the foundations for sustained prosperity and happiness in the USA. At a time when stadium boondoggles are soaking taxpayers around the country, Florida's book is urgently relevant. The argument may need some work, but hey: entrepreneurs of all kinds tend to thrive in a diverse, artsy, weird, non-conformist environment. Corporate welfare is not the answer (see Detroit), bike lanes and grunge music is (see Portland, OR). Wealth and happiness is ultimately created by people, not by giant corporations. Devising a great place to live, where people have great parks, schools, arts, and freedoms is the best path to the well being of economies and citizens alike.
Rating:
Summary: Thought Provoking and and an Important Addition
Review: I work with an organization that is in the process of revitalizing an small city in upstate New York. Florida gives us food for thought about how the young, professional...creative class thinks differently than the generations that preceeded them. This book is not an end-all (what book is?)it adds some important thoughts to the conversation. The lifestyle expectations of this group are higher. I lived in LA for most of last year and I obsevered a pattern of creative class individuals leaving for Boulder, Austin, and the like in order to have a better life...in most cases at equal or less income.
His thesis that a growing creative class population is a factor in economic and lifestyle growth is valid. As manufacturing jobs continue to decline in the US we need to look towards the well-paid occupations that will grow. I recently read Peter Drucker's "Management Challenges for the 21st Century" and he refers to this group as "knowledge workers" and he believes that they are the most important group of workers our economy.
The bottom line for me is: The creative class people like a lot of the same things that other groups do but it's more important to them. Considering this group is an important element in urban development.
Rating: 
Summary: Fad book for the masses
Review: If you've written a positive review here, you're probably one of the 38 million (how elite, basically 1/7 of the adult population) Americans who is a member of Richard Florida's Creative Class. Pat yourself on the back. You have new ideas. And you probably live in one of the creative cities - NYC, Austin, San Francisco... Fun for you. Now if government politicians would just pay attention to you - as if they don't already! - things would be even better! But this is all bunk. Richard Florida hasn't written a path-breaking new book. He's repacked some ideas in some cute catch phrases and smartly marketed that book to... the 38 million people who like to think they're hip, creative, and cosmpolitan. Actually, though, many of the cities that make it into his top 10 are, in fact, losers when it comes to domestic migration trends. San Francisco and New York, for instance, have been losing people to other, lower-cost destinations. (These cities only avoid being net losers because of immigration of lower-skilled, lower-paid workers from abroad.)
Rating:
Summary: Convoluted nonsense
Review: Patricia Drey in the MN Daily quotes this author as saying that "lawyers" and "doctors" are part of the "creative class". Surely these people jest.
These folks would do better to pick up a copy of Peter Drucker's Innovation and Entrepreneurship and read the "sandwich shop" example found within the first 10 pages.
If the writer can't get the basic definitions correct, (the assumptions) how are we to trust his conclusions?
Don't waste your time.
Rating: 
Summary: The Cognitive Elite: Now you see it; now you don't
Review: Possibly anyone who wrote a book on the 'Creative Class' just before 2003 should be exempt from critical review ' just like anyone who wrote an investment guide in 1928, or a colonial government primer in 1775. But 'The Rise of the Creative Class' has recently been reissued in paperback, is frequently quoted by ambitious politicians, and is still being touted by its author. Therefore, it matters that we re-examine its contents carefully. Richard Florida's thesis is that there is a niche group of society, which over the past century has grown to become a separately identifiable class in its own right, distinguishable from the Working Class or the Service Sector Class or the almost-disappeared class of agricultural workers. This is different from saying that today's better-educated workers need less direct supervision, or that many jobs vary more in content from day to day than used to be the case.
The author struggles mightily to define the nearly one-third of the population that he calls 'creative' as a valid class. He proposes definitions, backs up a couple of pages later, corrects his proposal, and starts off down another path. The result is more of an out loud conversation with himself than a clearly delineated model. There are no neat conclusions here. The book uses both published sources and the author's own research to identify the characteristics of his new class: who they are and what motivates them. Sometimes the sources are of doubtful value. One has to wonder why he would turn to his public policy students at prestigious Carnegie Mellon University to find out why highly-paid manufacturing jobs are no longer attractive to young blue-collar workers. A stroll through any of Pittsburgh's poorer neighborhoods would surely have elicited a more sensible and substantive response than that such jobs were 'insufficiently creative'. Similarly, the book quotes an Information Week magazine survey of high-tech workers on what mattered to them. Florida reads the low rating of stock options as a motivator to mean that respondents valued 'creative work' more than money. As one of those respondents, I can tell you that we were simply saying that the declining stock market had rendered all our options worthless. We were tired of being paid in funny money. A core point in the book's thesis is that 'creative workers' deliberately move to 'diverse, open, tolerant' regions and that 'creative companies' follow them there ' a reverse of the earlier pattern of workers going to where the jobs were. This is one of the many patterns Florida tries to pin down, but which squirm under his microscope. San Francisco follows the pattern, but pleasantly homogenous, middle-class Austin, TX is a high-tech Mecca, while funky, artistic, open, tolerant, diverse New Orleans lags. Tolerant of whom, by whom? Florida points out that there is a negative correlation between 'non-whites' and 'creative class' companies. The best leading indicator is the presence of a gay community. But is it surprising or meaningful, that the most affluent areas of the country are frequently home to double-male-income, no-kids households? Surely, this datum isn't enough to define a new class? Dr Florida assumes ' as did most of us ' that 2002 represented the nadir of the US economy and that we were rapidly returning to a more 'normal' job situation. In retrospect, we were all wrong, but what can one say about the 'Creative Class' thesis with the benefit of hindsight? Let's quote, as the book does, Hewlett-Packard CEO, Carly Fiorina, the quintessential 'creative class' leader of the time: 'Keep your tax incentives and highway interchanges; we will go where the highly skilled people are.' Most recently, this same CEO has angrily declared her 'right' to move those same jobs to a tax-shelter in funky, artistic '. Bangalore. If a million jobs can be re-categorized overnight from 'Creative Class' to commodity 'Service Sector', were they ever really part of a 'Creative Class' at all? ** Dr Florida has created a web site that can legitimately be regarded as an informal addendum to the book: http://www.creativeclass.org .
Rating:
Summary: Rise of the Creative Class profiles
Review: Richard Florida is one of the leading social techonomic cultural thinkers and authors of the current times, as important to his generation as Naisbitt (Megatrends, High Tech High Touch) and Porter (On Competition, Competitive Advantage) and Peters (Circle of Innovation, In Search of Excellence) were to theirs. Richard is also a rising star on the national lecture circuit, giving several hundred invited lectures a year. Whether you are looking for personal insights into the culture and prospects for the region you are living in or moving to now, or you are working to enhance your own enterprises and community, this book is for you. Florida has made a career out of understanding the socioeconomic chemistry that drives the knowledge age (creativity, expression, innovation, diversity, etc.) and communicating the dynamics to the rest of us in a fresh way. The Rise of the Creative Class embodies much of his research and insights into what makes some regions prosper in the knowledge age and others to wither. One of the cities in my region, Albuquerque, fairs very well on Florida's creativity indices for cities its size (#1). His book helps guide me in my work to interweave commerce and culture in this region, to recognize our strengths and weaknesses, to recognize and celebrate the full spectrum of peoples and expressions in the region from the arts to technologies. ... Bravo, Richard!
Rating:
Summary: The way things work
Review: Richard Florida's study began with a rather straightforward premise: what characterizes the cities and regions that are economically successful today? His conclusions are rather controversial, but, based on the statistical evidence he presents (as well as my own experience), I found them highly convincing. The liveliest economies, he finds, are in regions characterized by the 3 T's -- talent, technology, and tolerance. The implications are profound, to wit: 1. Conventional wisdom holds that, to boost an area's economy, it's necessary to attract large companies and thus create jobs. In fact, companies locate where the talent is; all the tax breaks in the world won't bring a large company to your area if they can't find the quality of employees they want there. Often, too, the talent itself will generate new companies and create jobs that way. 2. Urban planners assume that, to attract talent/jobs, what's important is to provide infrastructure: sports stadiums, freeways, shopping centers, etc. In fact, creative people prefer authenticity -- so making your city just like everyplace else is a sure way to kill its attractiveness. 3. The often-misunderstood "gay index" doesn't mean that gay people are more creative, or that attracting gays to a community will ipso facto boost its economy. Creative people tend to prefer gay-friendly communities because they're perceived as tolerant of anyone who isn't "mainstream"; a city that's run by a conservative good-ole-boys network isn't a good place to try to start a business unless you're one of the good ole boys. The book is primarily descriptive and analytical, rather than prescriptive. But I feel it's immensely valuable for pointing out that much of the conventional wisdom about economic development and community planning is just plain wrong, and suggesting alternative approaches that have a greater chance of succeeding. And I'm amused (and bemused) by the reviewers who sneered that this book propounds an elitist, liberal, contempt-for-the-working-masses view of American society. To me, the book is almost TOO descriptive: didn't these reviewers read the many statistical tables and the lengthy analyses that the author provides? Fact: The most economically successful cities and regions have these characteristics. That isn't propaganda; it's the way things work.
|
