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: 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: 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: 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: Richard Florida for President
Review: Richard Florida sees clearly what our present leadership does not- our country is in transition and the old rules no longer apply . He systematically shows through his research that cities that are thriving economically, intellectually and culturally are developing around a base of diversity, flexibility and tolerance. Talented people are moving to places that appeal to them and will allow them to reach their potential. He shows the only non-renewable resource is time and the only renewable resource the human intellect. Type his name into Google and you will find pages of growing city planning commissions either listening to him speak or their members quoting his book.
Run, Richard, run!
Rating:
Summary: Creative Class
Review: Richard Florida's book, 'The Rise of the Creative Class', provides readers with some interesting ideas about economic and social growth. Throughout the book, Florida relates economic growth to creativity and diversity, without one, you may not have the other. In addition, he identifies 3 Ts as necessary for growth: technology, talent and tolerance. While planning for the future, cities no only have to look at economic development, but must look at the climate the city provides for the arts. Recently moving from South Dakota, one of the areas Florida describes as have high social capital but lacking economic growth, Florida's ideas about fostering an environment in which creativity thrives ring true. Economic development does not mean acquiring a chain restaurant, but it should include developing an authentic local environment that allows creativity to flourish. Many criticize Florida's use of the Bohemian Index and Gay Index (however well it correlates to economic growth), citing the information does not apply to the majority of middle class Americans. The paperback edition of Florida's book contains a preface where the author points out that the creative environment is not limited to a city itself, but a region that allows people to live in the environment that suits them the best, i.e. Silicon Valley and San Francisco together provide an environment to growth. I do, however, find Florida's diversity ranking a bit lacking. Honolulu, one of the most diverse areas I have lived in, does not seem very diverse, because Asians and Pacific Islanders were considered as one racial/ethnic group.
Rating:
Summary: Insightful!
Review: The good news is, Richard Florida's book recognizes the growing economic and sociological impact of creativity. The bad news is that in just two years, it has lost some of its gloss. The collapse of the bull market, the popping of the dot.com bubble, the 9/11 trauma, each took some shine off of the creative economy, with its casual dress days, flexible schedules and free rides. But even though this appraisal occasionally sounds quaint, we believe that the book's faith in the transforming economic and social power of creativity, its broad view, and its excellent references and quotations make it worth recommending.
Rating:
Summary: "Demonstates how creative types shape our communities"
Review: This book has had a tremendous buzz around it since it was published earlier this year, and has sold well in the Birmingham area. And that makes sense, because according to Florida's book, more and more people are living like traditional creative types such as artists and writers, and that shapes our communities and economies. Birmingham actually scores well in national rankings of "creative cities."
|
