Creative city policy in the context of urban asymmetry

Abstract

This article provides an overview of local governments’ opportunities to utilise creative city thinking in their local development policy. The aim is to shed light on how creative city approaches relate to structural urban asymmetry, i.e. how structural factors condition local governments’ efforts to translate creative city theories into urban development policies. For the analysis ideal types of creative city approaches are constructed to be analysed from a structural perspective. In the empirical part, three growth-oriented approaches of these ideal types – community, business and institutionally oriented creative city policies – are discussed by presenting three cases of Finnish creative communities, those of Helsinki, Tampere and Kaustinen. Analysis reveals that structural conditions affect the critical mass and resilience rather than the range of tools applied to creative city policy. Structural conditions are particularly relevant through their resonances in governance and policy outcomes and making synergetic specialisation possible.

Keywords

creative city Finland Helsinki Kaustinen local economic development structural conditions Tampere urban asymmetry

Introduction

The concept of creative city is based on a conviction that creative industries and creativity as a generic attribute of social life provide opportunities to generate business and jobs and to increase the attractiveness of local communities. As a part of this trend, arts, culture and creativity have become important topics in town planning and industrial development (Freestone and Gibson, 2006; Landry, 2008; Monclus and Guardia, 2006; Scott, 2006).

Given the global interest in the idea of creative city, it is important to consider how it actually relates to economic growth and how local communities with different features and positions should integrate it into their economic development policies. It has already been widely recognised that the creative class theory as a ready-to-use guide for local economic development has its obvious limits. There is a strong contradiction especially between global creative class discourse and the realities of local communities (Comunian, 2011). Local communities’ conditions vary and they each have their own preconditions for creative city development, which determines ultimately what aspects of creative city theories and tools suit best to their development efforts. Such a nuanced view of creative city is largely neglected in current literature on local economic development.

Contextual constraints and their impact on local governments’ chances to utilise the creative city idea are only rarely explicitly addressed in current literature (see e.g. Duxbury, 2004; Costa et al., 2009; INTELI, 2011; Markusen and Gadwa, 2010; Rato et al., 2009; Romein and Trip, 2009, 2010; van Winden, 2008). This requires structural analysis of the preconditions for creative city development and policy formulation, which will be outlined in this article. The contribution of this view to current discussion about creative city is to provide basis for assessing the preconditions for the application of creative city in local economic development.

Objective and method

The objective of this article is to discuss how different creative city approaches relate to structural urban asymmetry. The theoretically motivated research problem is to analyse how contextual or structural factors condition creative city policies. The hypothesis is that structural factors condition the feasible content and scope of creative city policy. The analysis is based on ideal type method (Brewer, 2003; Hekman, 1983). Accordingly, ideal types of creative city policy are constructed and analysed within the framework of urban asymmetry.

In the empirical section, Finnish cases are presented as manifestations of three ideal types of growth-oriented creative city policy approaches, those of Helsinki following institutionally oriented policy, Tampere representing the case of business-oriented policy and Kaustinen as a representative case of community-oriented policy. They are all leading cases of the categories they represent, thus serving as illustrative examples of the three ideal types. On the basis of theoretical and empirical analyses, implications for local governments’ creative city policy are briefly outlined.

Asymmetry of creative city development

Benefitting from creative city policy has its preconditions. This becomes apparent when comparing creative cities in different parts of the world, not to speak of the situations of peripheral or disadvantaged communities (Florida and Tinagli, 2004; Hospers, 2003; Rato et al., 2009). An interesting question is whether the structural urban asymmetries at national, macro-regional and global levels condition creative city policies, and if they do, what are their major policy implications. For example, in a competitive setting capital cities and international gateway cities have the upper hand over most of the middle-sized and smaller cities (Chapain and Comunian, 2010; De Propris et al., 2009; Hall, 2000; Wolfe and Bramwell, 2008). There are also a number of fairly small regions, such as college towns, which have exceptionally high concentration of creative people (Florida, 2003). At the other end of the continuum there are small rural towns facing completely different challenges in their efforts to capitalise on culture and creativity (CCNC, 2009; Cooke and Lazzeretti, 2008: 5; Hall, 2011; INTELI, 2011; Stolarick et al., 2010). One reason for this points directly to structural conditions, for the criteria of success are often such that they logically imply certain urban scale, amenities and diversity (Lewis and Donald, 2009; see also van Heur, 2012). Urban asymmetry, thus, refers to differentiated conditions within which urban communities’ development policies must take place, the most critical structural elements being population, location, amenities, industrial composition, social and human capital, tolerance, GDP per capita and innovativeness as indicated by patents, R&D expenditure and scientific advancements (see Florida, 2005b).

The geography of the creative economy is fundamentally asymmetric. The highest-ranking global cities and leading cultural centres have grown fast, serving as magnets for talent and investments, whereas cities with an outdated economic structure and small cities in rural areas have lost out – at least in relative terms (Florida, 2002, 2005b). It seems that the ‘winners’ inherited a bundle of assets that helped them thrive in the knowledge-based economy (van Winden, 2008; cf. Wolfe and Bramwell, 2008).

Such a view is too simplistic and deterministic; however, for in reality practically all communities have some local potential to exploit. The key to the utilisation of such potential lies in the quality of local leadership and governance (on governance see Comunian, 2011; Costa et al., 2007, 2009; Lange, 2009; Neto and Serrano, 2011; van Winden, 2008; Ward, 2003). We may assume that the impact of structural conditions is to some extent determined by capability constraints (Giddens, 1984), which become manifest in both the nature of governance and policy processes and their resonances in the outcomes. This point must be taken into account even if our focus is mainly on structural constraints.

Ideal types of approaches to creative city policy

Here we construct ideal types of creative city policy by deducing their forms from structural conditions that set natural preconditions for policy design and implementation (cf. Costa et al., 2009; van Winden, 2008). Structural conditions of local jurisdictions, especially size, economic structure and position in the national and macro-regional structure and in global urban hierarchy, play a critical role in a ‘spiky world’ (Florida, 2005b). Not only the urban centre’s relative standing within its national economy but increasingly its position in the global urban hierarchy affects its growth prospects (Wolfe and Bramwell, 2008: 175; cf. Lazzeretti et al., 2009; Smith and Warfield, 2008).

To shed light on this dilemma we may identify creative city policy approaches on the basis of a literature review (e.g. Duxbury, 2004; Romein and Trip, 2009; Smith and Warfield, 2008). In order to shed light on structural aspects, we rely here on three social sectors: civil society, business and government, and relate them to the assumed base of creative economy: local culture, creative industries and prestigious cultural institutions. Policies with distinctively social nature form a category of their own. The typology is presented in Table 1.

Table 1.

Ideal types of creative city policies.

Criteria	Community-oriented creative city policy		Socially oriented creative city policy	Business-oriented creative city policy	Institutionally oriented creative city policy
Criteria	Rural context	Urban context	Socially oriented creative city policy	Business-oriented creative city policy	Institutionally oriented creative city policy
Basis of value creation	Nature; local traditions; local culture; craftsman enterprises; folklore; volunteerism	Creative or cultural quarters; art communities; artists’ workshops; urban culture; creative milieu	Social inclusion and integration through government intervention; social cohesion; area development; sustainable development	Competitiveness and synergy through creative industries and clusters; critical mass of creative industries; specialised content production; new technology; market logic (profitability)	Institutional thickness; large pool of cultural institutions; dominance of publicly funded cultural institutions; high culture (SOBs – Symphony, Opera, Ballet)
Theoretical foundation	Community-based cultural development (Jacobs, 1961); creative city planning (Landry, 2008; Landry and Bianchini, 1995); creative rural economy (Stolarick et al., 2010)	Cultural quarters; creative quarters (Evans, 2009a, 2009b); creative suburbia (Flew, 2012)	Creative city planning (Landry, 2008); creativity in urban regeneration (Sasaki, 2010; Zukin, 1995); cultural quarters in urban regeneration (Montgomery, 2003); sustainable regeneration (Evans and Jones, 2008)	Creative industries (Caves, 2000; Comunian et al., 2010; Flew and Cunningham, 2010; Oakley, 2004); cultural clusters and creative clusters (Bagwell, 2008; Mommaas, 2004; Wu, 2005); scenes (Lange, 2009)	Flagship facilities (Azua, 2006; Falck et al., 2010; Musterd and Murie, 2010; Schwab, 2004); cultural economy (Cooke and Lazzeretti, 2008; Palmer, 2000; Pratt, 2005); creative class and creative capital theory (Florida, 2002, 2005a)
Examples	Prince Edward County, Ontario, Canada; Port Fairy, Victoria, Australia; Glastonbury, UK; Kaustinen, Finland	Creative Quarter Folkestone; Temple Bar in Dublin; Cultural Industries Quarter in Sheffield	Soziale Stadt programme (Germany); urban regeneration schemes in Swansea, Cardiff, Leipzig and Adrià de Besos	Baltimore; Amsterdam; Barcelona; Turin; Manchester; Brighton & Hove; Melbourne; Kanazawa; Tampere	London; New York; Tokyo; Paris; Sydney; Toronto; Bilbao; Florence; Yokohama; Glasgow (ECC); Helsinki

To sum up, the institutional approach emphasises special programmes and cultural institutions. This is typical of global cities, capital cities and arts cities (Holden, 2007; cf. Polèse, 2011). Socially oriented creative city policy is associated with urban regeneration and such policy objectives as social inclusion, empowerment, sustainability and public health (Binns, 2005; Evans and Jones, 2008; Irving, 2010; Montgomery, 2003; Sasaki, 2010; Sepe, 2009). In the business-oriented approach the development and clustering of creative industries is in focus (Caves, 2000). The fourth paradigmatic form, the community-oriented approach, is based on the evolutionary development of culture and creativity in local civil society, two variants being creative quarters in the urban settings (Evans, 2009a) and cultural development in small and remote local communities (see Hall, 2011; INTELI, 2011; Stolarick et al., 2010).

In the next section we will illustrate these ideal types by discussing three major categories: large-scale institutional, business and rural community approaches (see Figure 1). Thus, small-scale cultural quarters in urban context as well as socially oriented regeneration approach are excluded from this discussion.

Figure 1.

Three approaches to the creative city policy.

A tale of three creative communities

Context

Finland is a Nordic welfare society, which is generally ‘well-positioned to compete in the Creative Age with a high level of overall creative competitiveness and rapid growth in its creative capabilities’ (Florida and Tinagli, 2004: 6). It started to embrace cultural and creative industries in its policy agenda in the late 1990s. The true turning point in the sense of adapting the creative economy perspective to public policy programmes was in 2007, when the Ministry of Education and Culture launched the Development Programme for Business Growth and Internationalization of Creative Industries 2007–2013. The vision proposed for the country is the development from an industrial society towards a creative economy (Creative Industries Finland, 2011).

At the local and regional level strategic thinking followed mainly national trends. There is no clear pattern of diffusion of cultural or creative city policies in local government. A tentative classification of Finnish local governments’ approaches to creative city is presented in Table 2.

Table 2.

Approaches to the creative city in Finnish local communities.

		Minimal approach : limited role of creative city scheme in local economic and social development	Institutionalist approach : institutional support to special cultural event, attraction or programme	Business-oriented approach : business- oriented programmes, creative industries and commercial attractions	Community-oriented approach : local history and culture and spontaneous grassroot level development
Size of local authority	Largest cities of Finland (>100,000 inhabitants)	Espoo, Vantaa, Oulu, Jyvaskyla	Helsinki (Culture, design), Turku (Culture, CCE)	Tampere (Creative industries)	(nonexistent)
	Middle-sized cities	Kokkola, Mikkeli, Hyvinkaa, Kuopio, Joensuu etc.	Savonlinna (Opera festival), Pori (Jazz festival)	Rovaniemi (Santa Claus Village), Lahti (Creative industries)	Tuusula, Jarvenpaa (Cultural heritage)
	Smaller local communities (<20,000 inhabitants)	(most of small local communities)	Kuhmo (Chamber music), Ikaalinen (Accordion festival)	Naantali (Moomin world)	Kaustinen (Folk music)

Culture has traditionally been assigned only a minor role in local industrial policy (Kainulainen, 2005). Economically oriented creative city policies first saw the light of day mostly in larger cities in the 2000s (Luova Suomi website, n/a). In the next section, three paradigmatic cases are presented as exemplifications of this trend.

The case of Helsinki: A design capital

Helsinki is the capital of Finland with some half a million inhabitants. It is a Nordic metropolis which has quite a lot to offer in such areas as music, theatre and design. As the capital city, as a metropolis with relatively strong evidence of world city formation (Beaverstock et al., 1999), and as the location of the nationally most important cultural institutions – the Finnish National Opera, the Finnish National Theatre, the Museum of Contemporary Art (Kiasma) and the like – Helsinki dominates the cultural life of Finland (for details, see City of Helsinki, 2008).

In 2000 Helsinki belonged to a network of European Capitals of Culture including eight other cities. This was a time when the city started to pay more attention to cultural capital. A similar kind of impetus was given when Helsinki was chosen to be the World Design Capital for 2012. In Finland this nomination received wide media attention and lent most welcome support to the city government in its efforts to create an image of a design city.

In recent years Helsinki has become concerned about its competitive position and international status. Helsinki’s main challenge is to increase its international visibility and to continue its active cultural policy as the flagship of the Finnish cultural economy. On the other hand, there are also local tensions related to this development paradigm, especially between flagship projects and grassroots culture, as described extensively in critical creative city theorisations (e.g. Darchen and Trembley, 2011; Glaeser, 2005; Hahn, 2010; Knieling, 2004; Peck, 2005; Pratt, 2008; Pratt and Jeffcutt, 2009; Vanolo, 2008). The welfare society context has eased such tensions, though, which has made Helsinki’s approach to creative city as a whole fairly consensus oriented and sustainable.

The case of Tampere: From high-tech to cultural industries

Tampere is an inland city with some 200,000 inhabitants. It has a long industrial history, which is reflected in its nickname Manse, i.e. the Manchester of Finland. It started to restructure its economic base in the 1980s in order to respond to the decline of manufacturing. This development has been programme oriented, as indicated by the eTampere programme for 2000–2005, the BioneXt programme for 2003–2010 and the Creative Tampere programme 2006–2011 (Kasvio and Anttiroiko, 2005; Kostiainen and Sotarauta, 2002).

In the early 2000s the idea of creativity appeared in the strategy of the City of Tampere, which aims at being an international growth centre of quality services, know-how and creativity. The idea of creativity was ‘localised’ in the sense that it was connected to the areas in which Tampere has special strengths, such as industrial heritage and high technology.

The Creative Tampere programme 2006–2011 (Luova Tampere) formed the core of the city government’s business development strategy. Creative Tampere was the largest programme of its kind among Finnish cities designed to generate new business and support the commercialisation of creative content production.

The City of Tampere invested in the programme to the extent of almost 7 million euros during the period 2006–2011. According to an evaluation report the overall impression of the programme is positive. It helped to generate jobs and new business, improved the image of the city and created an atmosphere conducive to creativity and entrepreneurship (Viljamaa et al., 2012). Tampere is an illuminating example of a city, which through locally adjusted business-oriented creative city policy has been able to contribute to economic restructuring.

Kaustinen: Building on a local folk music tradition

The municipality of Kaustinen with some 4300 inhabitants is a small but culturally active local community in Central Ostrobothnia. It was able to make culture both its brand and an important part of local economic life. This position is particularly remarkable, as it evolved in a small community with an unfavourable remote rural location.

Folk music has long roots in Kaustinen. Local developers started to organise the annual Kaustinen International Folk Music Festival as early as in 1968 (see www.kaustinen.net/).. Its fundamental principles have since then been the respect for the folk fiddle tradition, which is why it has avoided ‘creative destruction’ or over-commercialisation (cf. Tonts and Greive, 2002). The event became the largest folk music festival in the Nordic countries, attracting some 70,000–110,000 visitors to Kaustinen every July. In recent years the number of visitors has been lower, though, reaching in 2013 the level of 34,000. The municipality has built and supported various cultural facilities, the most important of these being Folk Art Centre (on the economic impact of the festival, see Tohmo, 2005).

Overall, Kaustinen has built impressive facilities and know-how that grew out of a small folk music event. Kaustinen itself is a brand in Finland, a name that every Finn associates with folk music. However, it highlights not only how local culture may give rise to an economically significant event, but also the difficulties a small local community faces in mounting such an event, one of the critical indicators being the bankruptcy of the Folk Music Foundation in 2011 that had organised the event since the mid-1970s (after that responsibility in organising the festival was transferred to Pro Kaustinen association). As concluded by Tohmo (2005), the effects of the festival on output are significant and the increase in tax revenues outweighs the annual subsidies. On the other hand, the impact on employment in the community is low and the voluntary work required is considerable. These realities point directly to structural constraints on creative communities in rural settings.

Discussion

In the current discussion it is generally held that creative city policy should be integrative, focussed and open and based on community’s existing qualities (INTELI, 2011; Romein and Trip, 2009, 2010; cf. Markusen and Gadwa, 2010). The structural point of view provides one perspective to this issue. Its point of departure is the fact that the geography of creativity is uneven both at national and international levels (De Propris et al., 2009). There is evidently a class of cities that benefit from a high-profile creative city policy, such as internationally renowned cultural cities. As a rule middle-sized post-industrial cities with sufficient preconditions are also likely to benefit from a business-oriented creative city policy. A distinctive specialisation profile seems to fit to them better than standardised creative city template, though (De Propris et al., 2009: 46). There are also disadvantageously positioned cities and a range of less affluent communities within metropolitan areas which in the context of neo-liberal urbanism are not necessarily gaining community-wide benefits from creative city policy (Ponzini and Rossi, 2010; cf. Hall, 2006; Peck, 2001; Zimmerman, 2008). The solution to their problems could be policies designed context specifically within a socially oriented urban regeneration framework that integrates economic, social, cultural and environmental policy objectives (Sasaki, 2010).

In smaller localities structural constraints affect almost everything when compared with larger and more affluent cities, but on the other hand, they can apply most of the creative city policy tools, as shown by the case of Kaustinen. In fact, almost all creative city policy tools – premises, business support, loans, incentives and physical and soft infrastructures (LDA, 2005; Rato et al., 2009) – can be applied to all local communities, despite the conditioning impact of urban asymmetry (cf. De Propris et al., 2009: 45). Content-wise the most obvious manifestation of structural constraints in policymaking is that production (creative industries) orientation in creative city policy increases as a function of the increase in a city’s size and improvement in its position in the urban hierarchy to a certain point, whereas at the level of global cities and world-class cultural cities the approach becomes inherently more consumption oriented. This suggests that in the business-oriented approaches attention is paid to the critical mass of producers and creative milieu, whereas in more culturally and institutionally oriented policies the basis is more in the interplay of cultural institutions, amenities and the critical mass of consumers. In smaller communities with an obvious lack of critical mass of both production and consumption, there is an inherent need for sensitivity to balance between the supply and demand aspects of cultural economy. In their case, the production is the key bottleneck in the process and requires thus special attention in policymaking. The creative city policy setting based on ideal type analysis is illustrated in Figure 2.

Figure 2.

Structural conditions and ideal types of creative city policy.

Contextual differences between cities have a role in explaining the variability of the consequences for strategic directions of urban governance (Atkinson and Easthope, 2009: 77). Variations in creative city policy lines and tools are more about scale or emphasis rather than about categorical suitability. On the other hand, the generative relationship between structural preconditions and the policy process and especially the governance capability are critical to success due to the magnifying impact that increases as a function of the increase in the critical mass of creative activities. Rather than inputs, the main effect of urban asymmetry may be manifest in policy and governance processes as well as in policy outputs. Namely, the success of cities with high ‘absolute magnitude’ in boosting production or consumption-oriented creative city policies is what counts in a spiky world (Florida, 2005b). Magnitude has a generative effect, which tends to turn city governments’ attention increasingly to the ‘quantity of quality’ in the geography of creativity. Paradigmatic cases for such magnitude are so-called natural born creative cities (Rato et al., 2009). The other relevant dimension relates to temporality, or more precisely, durability. Namely, small and remote areas easily remain ‘tidal economies’ that depend on continuous efforts to attract external resources, whereas magnitude carries with it the critical mass that helps in building durable synergies from creative capital and institutional thickness and in creating the preconditions for sustainable and synergetic specialisation in cultural industries.

Conclusion

Urban asymmetry affects creative city policy by determining the optimal use of the resource base and the requirements of critical mass. Thus, community, business and institutionally oriented creative city policies have their logical connections to local and contextual preconditions. Yet at the same time the range of creative city policy tools does not seem to be sensitive to urban asymmetry. This asymmetry rather affects governance, policy design and implementation by determining the magnitude and resonance and the durability of the outcomes of the interplay between structural conditions, local creative capital and governance capability.

References

Atkinson

Easthope

(2009) The consequences of the creative class: The pursuit of creativity strategies in Australia’s cities. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 33: 64–79.

Azua

(2006) Bilbao: From the Guggenheim to the Knowledge City. In: Carillo

(ed.) Knowledge Cities. Approaches, Experiences, and Perspectives, Amsterdam: Elsevier, pp. 97–111.

Bagwell

(2008) Creative clusters and city growth. Creative Industries Journal 1: 31–46.

Beaverstock

Smith

Taylor

(1999) A roster of world cities. Cities 16: 445–458.

Binns

(2005) Capitalising on Culture: An Evaluation of Culture-Led Urban Regeneration Policy, Dublin: Futures Academy, Dublin Institute of Technology.

Brewer

(2003) Ideal type. In: Miller

Brewer

(eds) The A–Z of Social Research, London: Sage, pp. 148.

Caves

(2000) Creative Industries, Contracts Between Art and Commerce, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

CCNC (2009) Developing and Revitalizing Rural Communities Through Arts and Creativity: An International Literature Review and Inventory of Resources. Creative City Network of Canada. Available at: www.creativecity.ca/component/docman/doc_download/53-rural-communities-arts-2009 (accessed 21 July 2012).

Chapain

Comunian

(2010) Enabling and inhibiting the creative economy: The role of the local and regional dimensions in England. Regional Studies 44: 717–734.

10.

City of Helsinki (2008) Review of Arts and Culture in Helsinki. Urban Facts. Statistics 2008: 30. Helsinki: City of Helsinki.

11.

Comunian

(2011) Rethinking the creative city: The role of complexity, networks and interactions in the urban creative economy. Urban Studies 48: 1157–1179.

12.

Comunian

Chapain

Clifton

(2010) Location, location, location: Exploring the complex relationship between creative industries and place. Creative Industries Journal 3: 5–10.

13.

Cooke

Lazzeretti

(2008) Creative Cities, Cultural Clusters and Local Economic Development, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

14.

Costa

Magalhães

Vasconcelos

(2007) A discussion on the governance of ‘Creative Cities’: Some insights for policy action. Norwegian Journal of Geography 61: 122–132.

15.

Costa P, Seixas J and Roldão A (2009) From ‘Creative Cities’ to ‘Urban Creativity’? Space, Creativity and Governance in the Contemporary City. DINÂMIACET Working Papers, 2009/80. Lisboa: DINÂMIACET.

16.

Creative Industries Finland (2011) Creative Economy and Beyond: Insights from Finland. In: Anna Kari (ed.) Helsinki: Creative Industries Finland, Aalto University. Available at: www.luovasuomi.fi/file_attachment/get/creative_economy_web_uusi3.pdf?attachment_id=33 (accessed 10 July 2012).

17.

Darchen S and Tremblay DG (2011) The Attraction/Retention of Knowledge Workers and the Creative City Paradigm: Can We Plan for the Talents and at What Cost? The case of Montreal. Research Note of the Canada Research Chair on the Socio-organizational Challenges of the Knowledge Economy. No 11-1A. Téluq-UQAM. Available at: www.teluq.uqam.ca/chaireecosavoir/pdf/11-1a.pdf (accessed 27 July 2012).

18.

De Propris

Chapain

Cooke

(2009) The Geography of Creativity, Interim Report. London: The National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts (NESTA).

19.

Duxbury N (2004) Creative Cities: Principles and Practices. Background Paper F-47. Ottawa: Canadian Policy Research Networks Inc. (CPRN). Available at: cprn.org/documents/31347_fr.pdf (accessed 21 July 2012).

20.

Evans

(2009a) From cultural quarters to creative clusters – Creative spaces in the new city economy. In: Legner

(ed.) The Sustainability and Development of Cultural Quarters: International Perspectives, Stockholm: Institute of Urban History, pp. 32–59.

21.

Evans

(2009b) Creative cities, creative spaces and urban policy. Urban Studies 46: 1003–1040.

22.

Evans

Jones

(2008) Rethinking sustainable urban regeneration: Ambiguity, creativity, and the shared territory. Environment and Planning A 40: 1416–1434.

23.

Falck O, Fritsch M and Heblich S (2010) The Phantom of the Opera: Cultural Amenities, Human Capital, and Regional Economic Growth. IZA DP No. 5065. Bonn: The Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA). Available at: ftp.iza.org/dp5065.pdf (accessed 17 August 2012).

24.

Flew

(2012) Creative suburbia: Rethinking urban cultural policy – The Australian case. International Journal of Cultural Studies 15: 231–246.

25.

Flew

Cunningham

(2010) Creative industries after the first decade of debate. The Information Society 26: 113–123.

26.

Florida

(2002) The Rise of the Creative Class, New York, NY: Basic Books.

27.

Florida

(2003) Cities and the creative class. City and Community 2: 3–19.

28.

Florida

(2005a) Cities and the Creative Class, New York, NY: Routledge.

29.

Florida R (2005b) The world is spiky. The agenda. The Atlantic Monthly, October, 48–51.

30.

Florida R and Tinagli I (2004) Europe in the Creative Age. London: Demos/Carnegie Mellon Software Industry Center. Available at: www.demos.co.uk/files/EuropeintheCreativeAge2004.pdf (accessed 10 August 2012).

31.

Freestone

Gibson

(2006) The cultural dimension of urban planning strategies: An historical perspective. In: Monclus

Guardia

(eds) Culture, Urbanism and Planning, Aldershot: Ashgate, pp. 21–41.

32.

Giddens

(1984) The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration, Cambridge: Polity Press.

33.

Glaeser

(2005) Review of Richard Florida’s the rise of the creative class. Regional Science and Urban Economics 35: 593–596.

34.

Hahn J (2010) Creative cities and (un)sustainability – Cultural perspectives. Cultura21, 3. Available at: www.cultura21.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/Julia-Hahn-c21-ebook-vol3.pdf (accessed 27 July 2012).

35.

Hall

(2006) Urban entrepreneurship, corporate interests and sports mega-events. Sociological Review 54: 59–70.

36.

Hall H (2011) Harvesting the Rural Creative Economy. Knowledge Synthesis. Kingston: Queen’s University School of Business, The Monieson Centre. Available at: ruralontarioinstitute.ca/file.aspx?id=98719b77-02be-491f-afb2-5c545a9801ce (accessed 21 July 2012).

37.

Hall

(2000) Creative cities and economic development. Urban Studies 37: 639–649.

38.

Hekman

(1983) Weber’s ideal type: A contemporary reassessment. Polity 16: 119–137.

39.

Holden J (2007) Publicly-Funded Culture and the Creative Industries. England: Arts Council; London: Demos. Available at: www.demos.co.uk/files/Publicly_Funded_Culture_and_the_Creative_Industries.pdf?1240939425 (accessed 22 February 2010).

40.

Hospers

G-J

(2003) Creative cities in Europe. Urban competitiveness in the knowledge economy. Intereconomics 38: 260–269.

41.

INTELI (2011) Creative-Based Strategies in Small and Medium-Sized Cities: Guidelines for Local Authorities. INTELI – Inteligência em Inovacäo, Centro de Inovacäo. Available at: urbact.eu/fileadmin/Projects/Creative_Clusters/documents_media/URBACTCreativeClusters_TAP_INTELI_Final.pdf (accessed 21 July 2012).

42.

Irving A (2010) Creative policies for creative cities literature review: The engagement of marginalised and disadvantaged groups in culture-led urban regeneration. Available at: www.creativedesignandinclusiveengagement.wordpress.com/2010/11/24/hello-world/ (accessed 28 July 2012).

43.

Jacobs

(1961) The Death and Life of Great American Cities, New York, NY: Random House.

44.

Kainulainen

(2005) Kunta ja kulttuurin talous [Local government and cultural economy], Tampere: Tampere University Press.

45.

Kasvio A and Anttiroiko A-V (eds) (2005) e-City: Analysing Efforts to Generate Local Dynamism in the City of Tampere. Tampere: Tampere University Press.

46.

Knieling

(2004) Big projects, festivalisation and visions as strategies of urban planning in global times. Case study Metropolis Hamburg. In: Eckardt

Kreisl

(eds) City Images and Urban Regeneration, Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, pp. 169–187.

47.

Kostiainen J and Sotarauta M (2002) Finnish city reinvented: Tampere’s path from industrial to knowledge economy. Working Paper Series, MIT-IPC-02-006. Cambridge, MA: Industrial Performance Center, MIT. Available at: www.web.mit.edu/ipc/publications/pdf/02-006.pdf (accessed 6 August 2012).

48.

Landry

(2008) The Creative City: A Toolkit for Urban Innovators, 2nd ed. London: Earthscan.

49.

Landry C and Bianchini F (1995) The Creative City. Demos, Paper No. 12. London: Demos. Available at: www.demos.co.uk/files/thecreativecity.pdf?1240939425 (accessed 12 July 2012).

50.

Lange B (2009) Re-scaling Governance in Berlin’s Creative Economy. Creative Encounters Working Paper 39. Copenhagen: Copenhagen Business School. Available at: www.openarchive.cbs.dk/bitstream/handle/10398/7981/39_BL_Re-scaling_Governance_in_Berlin's_Creative_Economy.pdf?sequence=1 (accessed 10 July 2012).

51.

Lazzeretti L, Boix R and Capone F (2009) Why do creative industries cluster? An analysis of the determinants of clustering of creative industries. In: Summer Conference 2009 at Copenhagen Business School, DRUID. Available at: www2.druid.dk/conferences/viewpaper.php?id=5746&cf=32 (accessed 20 July 2012).

52.

LDA (2005) Strategies for Creative Spaces: Phase 1 Report. Available at: www.artistlink.org/files/Strategies%20for%20Creative%20Spaces.pdf (accessed 21 July 2012).

53.

Lewis

Donald

(2009) A new rubric for ‘creative city’ potential in Canada’s smaller cities. Urban Studies 47: 29–54.

54.

Luova Suomi (n/a) Maakunta-ja kuntakohtaiset strategiat ja selvitykset [Strategies and reports by regional councils and local governments]. Website of Luova Suomi, Finland. Available at: www.luovasuomi.fi/tietoa/strategiat_ja_selvitykset_suomessa/alueelliset_strategiat_ja_selvitykset/maakunta_ja_kuntakohtaiset_strategiat_ja_selvitykset (accessed 21 July 2012).

55.

Markusen A and Gadwa A (2010) Creative Placemaking. A White Paper for The Mayors’ Institute on City Design, a leadership initiative of the National Endowment for the Arts in partnership with the United States Conference of Mayors and American Architectural Foundation. Markusen Economic Research Services and Metris Arts Consulting. Washington, DC: National Endowment for the Arts. Available at: www.nea.gov/pub/CreativePlacemaking-Paper.pdf (accessed 28 July 2012).

56.

Mommaas

(2004) Cultural clusters and the post-industrial city: Towards the remapping of urban cultural policy. Urban Studies 41: 507–532.

57.

Monclus J and Guardia M (eds) (2006) Culture, Urbanism and Planning. Aldershot: Ashgate.

58.

Montgomery

(2003) Cultural quarters as mechanisms for urban regeneration. Part 1: Conceptualising cultural quarters. Planning, Practice and Research 18: 293–306.

59.

Musterd

Murie

(2010) The idea of the creative or knowledge based city. In: Musterd

Murie

(eds) Making Competitive Cities, Oxford: Wiley Blackwell, pp. 17–32.

60.

Neto P and Serrano MM (2011) Governance and Creativity on Urban Regeneration Processes. CEFAGE-UE Working Paper 2011/07. Évora, Portugal: CEFAGE-UE.

61.

Oakley

(2004) Not so cool Britannia: The role of the creative industries in economic development. International Journal of Cultural Studies 7: 67–77.

62.

Palmer

(2000) Cultural capital in the city. In: Ooi

(ed.) Model Cities. Urban Best Practices Vol II.Singapore: Urban Redevelopment Authority and Singapore: The Institute of Policy Studies, pp. 34–37.

63.

Peck

(2001) Neoliberalizing states: Thin policies/hard outcomes. Progress in Human Geography 25: 445–455.

64.

Peck

(2005) Struggling with the creative class. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 29: 740–770.

65.

Polèse

(2011) The arts and local economic development: Can a strong arts presence uplift local economies? A study of 135 Canadian cities. Urban Studies 49: 1811–1835.

66.

Ponzini

Rossi

(2010) Becoming a creative city: The entrepreneurial mayor, network politics and the promise of an urban renaissance. Urban Studies 17: 1037–1057.

67.

Pratt

(2005) Cultural industries and public policy. International Journal of Cultural Policy 11: 31–44.

68.

Pratt

(2008) Creative cities: The cultural industries and the creative class. Geografiska annaler: Series B – Human geography 90: 107–117.

69.

Pratt AC and Jeffcutt P (eds) (2009) Creativity, Innovation and the Cultural Economy. London: Routledge.

70.

Rato B, Roldão A and Mühlhan O (2009) A Typology of Creative Cities in the World – Lessons Learned. Working Paper 2009/82. Lisbon: DINÂMIA – Centro de Estudos sobre a Mudança Socioeconómica, ISCTE. Available at: www.repositorio-iul.iscte.pt/bitstream/10071/3165/1/DINAMIA_WP_2009-82.pdf (accessed 21 July 2012).

71.

Romein A and Trip JJ (2009) Key Elements of Creative City Development: An Assessment of Local Policies in Amsterdam and Rotterdam. City Futures ‘09m 4–6 June 2009. Madrid: Delft University of Technology, OTB Research Institute for Housing, Urban and Mobility Studies. Available at: www.cityfutures2009.com/PDF/22_Romein_Arie.pdf (accessed 26 July 2012).

72.

Romein A and Trip JJ (2010) The Creative Production and Consumption Milieu. Creative City Challenge, Framework Report 6.1. Delft: Delft University of Technology, OTB Research Institute for the Built Environment.

73.

Sasaki

(2010) Urban regeneration through cultural creativity and social inclusion: Rethinking creative city theory through a Japanese case study. Cities 27: 3–9.

74.

Schwab

(2004) The rise of urban symbols through cultural policies. Three flagship cultural projects between internationalisation strategies and local resistance. In: Eckardt

Kreisl

(eds) City Images and Urban Regeneration, Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, pp. 211–224.

75.

Scott

(2006) Creative cities: Conceptual issues and policy questions. Journal of Urban Affairs 28: 1–17.

76.

Sepe

(2009) Creative urban regeneration between innovation, identity and sustainability. International Journal of Sustainable Development 12: 144–159.

77.

Smith

Warfield

(2008) The creative city: A matter of values. In: Cook

Lazzeretti

(eds) Creative Cities, Cultural Clusters and Local Development, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, pp. 287–312.

78.

Stolarick

Denstedt

Donald

(2010) Creativity, tourism and economic development in a rural context: The case of Prince Edward County. Journal of Rural and Community Development 5: 238–254.

79.

Tohmo

(2005) Economic impacts of cultural events on local economies: An input-output analysis of the Kaustinen Folk Music Festival. Tourism Economics 11: 431–451.

80.

Tonts

Greive

(2002) Commodification and creative destruction in the Australian rural landscape: The case of Bridgetown, Western Australia. Australian Geographical Studies 40: 58–70.

81.

van Heur

(2012) Small cities and the sociospatial specificity of economic development: A heuristic approach. In: Lorentzen

van Heur

(eds) Cultural Political Economy of Small Cities, Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 17–30.

82.

Vanolo

(2008) The image of the creative city: Some reflections on urban branding in Turin. Cities 25: 370–382.

83.

van Winden

(2008) Urban governance in the knowledge-based economy: Challenges for different city types. Innovation: Management, Policy and Practice 10: 197–210.

84.

Viljamaa K, Lahtinen H and Valkonen J (2012) Luova Tampere-ohjelman loppuarviointi [Final Evaluation of Creative Tampere programme]. Loppuraportti 27.2.2012. Tampere: Ramboll. Available at: www.luovatampere.fi/arkisto/materiaali/Luova%20Tampere%20-ohjelman%20loppuarviointiraportti_29_02_2012-1.pdf (accessed 27 July 2012).

85.

Ward

(2003) Entrepreneurial urbanism, state restructuring and civilizing ‘New’ East Manchester. Area 35: 116–127.

86.

Wolfe

Bramwell

(2008) Innovation, creativity and governance: Social dynamics of economic performance in city-regions. Innovation: Management, Policy and Practice 10: 170–182.

87.

Wu W (2005) Dynamic cities and creative clusters. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper 3509, February 2005. Washington, DC: World Bank.

88.

Zimmerman

(2008) From brew town to cool town: Neoliberalism and the creative city development strategy in Milwaukee. Cities 25: 230–242.

89.

Zukin

(1995) The Cultures of Cities, Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.