Creative Communities is pleased to present the first in a two-part series on the Creative Economy for small cities.

In the creative attraction model of urban development popularized by the University of Toronto’s Richard Florida, Canada’s small cities sometimes seem like losers by default. In a version of creativity measured by technology parks, numbers of immigrants, and so-called “bohemian” occupations, cities like Sudbury, Moncton and Kingston routinely appear at the bottom of both real and imagined hierarchies of city success. How, then, should smaller Canadian communities—ones that are often grappling with de-industrialization and population decline—go about attracting educated, diverse individuals and building a foundation for a future in the creative economy?

The answer, I argue in a recent article with Queen’s Geography Professor Betsy Donald, is to invest in their inherent strengths. In “A New Rubric for Creative Potential in Canada’s Smaller Communities,” we challenge the operationalisation of the creative capital model and overturn the stark have/have-not dichotomy that occurs when Canada’s (relatively few) cities are ranked and tabled under the Floridian indices of “technology, talent, and tolerance.”

Based on the findings of more than 50 interviews with Kingston-area “creatives” (mostly academics), we found that the qualities of livability and sustainability—as much as technology or tolerance—are key attractors of educated, enlightened professionals in Canada. Respondents consistently pointed to walking and biking to work, access to green space and the outdoors, a concentrated downtown, and high connectivity as reasons to come to or stay in Kingston.

Perhaps more importantly, while these are the kinds of factors that attract the current “cool” and “creative,” they also form the foundation for livable, environmentally conscious, and socially sustainable communities, things that in and of themselves are becoming the new “cool” in North America. While livability might comprise unique natural and built environments, recreational opportunities, and proximity to friends, sustainability refers more to the long-term security of jobs, the preservation of the environment, and consistent planning procedures rather than developer-led boom-bust cycles. Or in Manuel Castells’ words, “the conditions of [a city’s] production do not destroy over time the conditions of its reproduction.”

Canada’s smaller communities already demonstrate a competitive advantage in these areas. We measured Canada’s cities on an alternative rubric of indicators based on livability and sustainability principles. These ranged from ecological footprint, to housing quality, public transit, and walking and biking rates. In many of these areas, Canada’s smaller cities—including Kingston—surpassed their larger counterparts. Although Kingston and other subway-less cities fare predictably poorly in terms of public transit usage, the small cities generally have a smaller ecological footprint, a shorter commuting distance, and a much higher frequency of walking and biking to work (see figure). Many Kingston creatives had, in fact, left the congestion of Toronto to shorten their commute and increase the time spent with family. Yet the results also showed that Kingston and other small cities have declining housing stocks, with many homes in need of repairs and few options for quality low-income housing. This marks an area where small cities can improve their livability advantages even further.
In Part Two, we’ll explore how small cities can foster cultural development to encourage growth in the local Creative Economy.  

The full article is available in Volume 47, Issue 1 (January 2010) of Urban Studies.

Comments

Add New Search

Write comment
Name:
Email:
Title:
	Please input the anti-spam code that you can read in the image.

Powered by !JoomlaComment 3.26

3.26 Copyright (C) 2008 Compojoom.com / Copyright (C) 2007 Alain Georgette / Copyright (C) 2006 Frantisek Hliva. All rights reserved."