|
 Creative Communities is pleased to present the second in a two-part series on the Creative Economy for small cities.
Part One of this series, explored how livability and sustainability foster the Creative Economy in small cities as much as the traditional “3 T’s”: tolerance, technology, and talent. It is equally important to note that many of the growth strategies associated with the creative model have been perceived as less successful in smaller Canadian cities than in their metropolitan counterparts.
Referring to Kingston’s now completed K-Rock Centre, one respondent said: “The city’s building an arena downtown. Supposedly, it’s going to develop the downtown area. Who, in Ontario, has successfully developed the downtown area as a result of building an arena? Nobody. Hamilton built an arena. London built an arena. The areas around these arenas, they’re dead. The arenas do nothing for the economy.” Our study suggested that small cities would do better to cultivate the ways in which their residents are already busily being creative every day—in studios, bands, markets and the like—than by installing the grand, concretized arts and entertainment outlets found in large urban centres like Toronto and Montreal.
Smaller communities themselves can take an active role in changing the parameters of the creativity debate. By capitalizing on stronger, tighter social networks, small cities can promote the type of collective action needed to organize music festivals, build community gardens, fundraise or lobby for walking and bike paths, or develop composting or other environmental programs. It is perhaps through these techniques that a Canadian city can become what Florida calls the mythical first place that will “overcome” the seemingly inherent inequalities of the creative economy.
 Not all creative attraction strategies for smaller cities are bottom-up. Municipal officials and policymakers, too, can help push forward a more sustainable creative growth agenda by using quality-of-life and environmental indicators as the chief measures of success and by applying city policy in an experimental and open-ended manner. Smaller cities should also re-conceive themselves as players in urban networks rather than would-be metropolitan competitors. Kingston, for example, is not just a step-sibling to Toronto. It can also be seen as a gateway to the Thousand Islands and Prince Edward County resort areas, a training and recruiting centre for Ottawa’s public sector, and a music-scene alternative to Montreal and Toronto.
The final piece of this equation is a re-branding process. A recent article by Jeff Filion and his colleagues said that “to create an emotional linkage with talented individuals, smaller cities in Canada must form a new “core identity.” Based on the findings summarized here, places like Kingston, Picton, and Peterborough could easily bill themselves as “green cities,” “sustainable cities,” or “most livable cities.” Creating these new identities will depend not on boosterism or creative “installations,” like arenas or museums, but further investment in the place qualities and creative activities that smaller cities have already embraced—as well as the ones (e.g., housing quality) that may need improvement. In doing so, smaller cities can work to seize upon the growing frustrations with cost, congestion, and commuting in Toronto, Montreal, and Vancouver, by offering livable, sustainable alternatives.
The full article is available in the Volume 47, Issue 1 (January 2010) of Urban Studies.
|
