Watering the Tree of Creativity

The creative sector has a huge social and economic impact. So why don't we do more to foster it?

Misperceptions abound in the corporate-dominated culture of the U.S. and Canada about the nature and importance of creative work. Implicitly at least, we are still taught by most of our institutions that artists of all stripes are a reclusive bunch who prefer working – when they work at all – in isolation.

Such people, who are basically defined as having too much time on their hands, are mostly oblivious to their workspace. Such people and their sporadic creative spurts don’t need or deserve the support that regular businesses require to thrive; they can work anywhere, without a stable physical address and the right set-up. They are, and deserve to remain, up in the air.

In this thinking, it is creative people themselves who actively shun interaction and crave the isolation and even destitution that embodies the common image we have of the starving artist. Since there is no real “market” for their “services”, the invisible hand casts them to where they naturally belong: on the margins of society, away from the public eye.

Right-wing politicians rant that the so-called “creative sector” is at best an aesthetic luxury reserved for flush economic times, and at worst an economic drain and a leach on society. It can only be supported, and then only as an after-thought, by philanthropic businesspeople, who, unlike the recipients of their largesse, do “real work” and generate “real value.”

Yet as the reality of the most severe economic turbulence in anyone’s memory sets in, and the quest for new solutions gains greater momentum across disciplines and social classes, these types of simplistic and long-held assumptions are being challenged more than ever before.

The vast social and economic benefits of the “creative sector” are being steadily recognized by an increasing array of schools, universities, and an expanding non-profit sector, which aim, together, to fill the yawning gap left by destructive business and consumer practices that have forced millions across the continent into a state of extreme uncertainty and dislocation.

People of varied backgrounds are increasingly recognizing that a vibrant creative sector is at the core of any credible attempt to restructure our unsustainable living practices, and to create a new “triangle of harmony” among the economy, people, and the natural environment. The people involved in the creative sector lead the search for new and more adaptive lifestyles. It is thus critical to examine what types of work and social environments are necessary for enabling people involved in creative work to fulfill their mission.

The work of Richard Florida, now a professor at the Rotman School of Management in Toronto, opened a new chapter in the importance that universities attach to understanding the social and economic impact of the creative sector. Florida ’s best-selling The Rise of the Creative Class, which first appeared in 2002, explored the shift in American society from the traditionally rigid and hierarchical industrial and corporate culture to one in which the creative ethos is increasingly valued as the key driver of economic growth and prosperity.

Important as Florida ’s work was when it came out, a new line of research has emerged that aims to fill important gaps in Florida ’s thinking. This new work shows that Florida ’s definition of the “creative class” – as anyone with a bachelor’s degree or higher – is at once too broad and too narrow. Too broad because it lumps together engineers and accountants and pharmacological researchers with designers and painters and writers and too narrow because it discounts the critical fact that many of the most creative and innovative individuals in business and the arts alike never attended university, or dropped-out to attend to their core creative needs.

The most prominent representative of this new line of inquiry is the recent work of Ann Markusen, one of the world’s leading scholars of regional planning. Markusen, who is currently professor and director of the Project on Regional and Industrial Economics at the University of Minnesota, has shown that studying the social impact of artists (which Florida mostly overlooks) is at the core of any attempt to understand the “creative class.”

In a 2006 paper, entitled, “Urban Development and the Politics of the Creative Class: Evidence from the Study of Artists,” Markusen provides a powerful critique of Florida’s “creative class” formulations, showing the “potential for artists as a political force to lead in social and urban transformation, and the implausibility of their common cause with other members of Florida’s creative class such as scientists, engineers, managers, and lawyers.”

Extending this line of inquiry, Markusen and her Minnesota team were commissioned by the City of San Jose, California, at the epicentre of Silicon Valley, to launch the “San Jose Creative Entrepreneur Project: Artists’ Resource and Space Study.” The resulting paper, produced in partnership with the San Francisco-based Center for Cultural Innovation, shows that many artists who would potentially set up shop in San Jose , have not done so because the city lacks sufficient and inspiring creativity-friendly physical, social and public spaces.

Markusen’s newer work serves as a guidepost for new scholars and practitioners focused on creating physical and social spaces that are conducive to creativity and to social and cultural change and innovation.

One of the most successful attempts at providing a congenial and supportive work environment for the creative sector is represented by the work of the Toronto-based Urbanspace Property Group, which has acquired and revitalized two large, century-old buildings in Toronto’s design district. Urbanspace’s two signature buildings, 401 Richmond and the Robertson Building, have brought to life tens of thousands of square feet of creativity-friendly workplace. They house hundreds of tenants active in the creative sector who see their workspace and the surrounding environment as critical enablers and nurturer of their pursuits.

Back in 2003, a study commissioned by all three levels of government, and conducted jointly by teams from Toronto ’s York and Ryerson universities, shed key light on lessons that can be learned from the success of Urbanspace. The study, entitled, “New Workplace Commons: A Study of Innovative Support for Cultural and Social Enterprises in the Non-Profit and For-Profit Sectors,” was based on a major survey of tenants at the 401 Richmond building. It showed the significance of attachment to space by those active in creative pursuits, and the importance of sharing as a key theme among tenants.

One of the key attributes of the Urbanspace buildings is the reasonable rent and the aesthetically inspiring environment: high ceilings, windows that open, brick interiors, open concept workspace, ample meeting rooms, wireless online access throughout, as well the critically important social space where ongoing creative pursuits and challenges are shared alongside food and refreshments.

The successful record of Urbanspace as an enabler and nurturer of creative talent is now making it necessary to imagine the comparative and international dimensions of this phenomenon. The unfolding debate between Florida and Markusen can enable a much-needed cross-border perspective between Canada and the U.S. on the best ways of designing the types of spaces that empower talent and spawn innovative approaches. In this time of economic and, by extension, cultural upheaval, the need for it seems more acute than ever before.