Annot at ed by TNC September 20, 2008; not yet rewritten for style, except for some examples , esp. in 2ed half. No change in Dan’s proposed data analysis except for a few point s : 1. don't try to compute local vs. branches of bigger firms as is too hard for now.

(Maybe if we find someone who could work on just this, perhaps this fall.) 2 use log log; 3. See red notes at last section for more speifics than Dan had. TNC notes in Red/visibl e

with Track Changes in MS Word.

Eric already worked on a memo for data analysis from this ; I don't find. he was to resend?

Chapter 5

Scenes and the Creative City: Linking Consumption and Production, or: how the way we consume impacts the way we work.

Scenes, we argued in chapter 1, have increased in historical and theoretical salience. Their role in social life merits study in its own right. Thus, we began, in chapter 2, by defining scenes analytically as “third spaces” primarily devoted to the pleasures of sociable consumption, in contrast to work, home, or politics, and distinct from sub-cultures or milieus. In chapter 3, we turned to the internal structure of scenes and articulated a conceptual model of scenes in terms of the different dimensions of theatricality, authenticity, and legitimacy they affirm or resist. In order to assess the impact of scenes, in chapter 4 we proposed methods for measuring scenes and elaborated our core analytical model. In chapter 5 we offered a brief descriptive tour of the U.S. Scenescape in order to highlight the extent to which our measures do in fact capture considerable differences in the atmospheres and moods across and within regions and cities. And in the following series of chapters, we move from questions about how scenes arose, what scenes are, how we measure them, and where they are, to questions of what scenes do.

In the present chapter, we begin investigating what scenes do by asking whether and how scenes might be factors in fostering creative cities. That is, we seek to connect the way people consume with the innovativeness in how they produce. Typically, there has been a disparity between consumption and production models of culture [Terry add references and briefly elaborate]. This chapter proposes a set of mechanisms and causal linkages that join the two.

The Institutionalization and Internalization of Creativity. We begin our analysis of the impact of scenes with the “creative cities thesis” because this topic has attracted much recent attention, both among academics and policy-makers (Romein and Trip 2008 review key aspects of this literature). Spurred by the decline and outsourcing of manufacturing in Western economies since the 1970’s, many cities have sought alternative sources of vitality. Thus, cities have cheated “the death of distance” (Craincross, others) through developing themselves, as in New York and London, into hubs for business and financial services (Sassen); into centers for tourism, consumption, and leisure activities as in Bilbao, the Boston waterfront, and Chicago’s Millennium Park (Clark 2003); or, into focal points for gathering the talented, creative individuals (“human

capital”) crucial to success in “knowledge economies,” as in Silicon Valley, Seattle, Barcelona, and the North Carolina “research triangle” (Florida, Reich, Becker).

What guides these policy and research agendas is the conviction that in “post-industrial” economies, the most essential resource a city possesses is its people. That is, cultivating and concentrating innovativeness, ingenuity, dedication, motivation, and aesthetic sensibilities matters more where economic and urban success depends not only on efficiency and labor power but also on traditionally artistic and intellectual categories like novelty, style, and insight (Landry, Reichert). Human performance is one of the key factors of production (Parsons 2008). And innovation is not equally distributed across space: the number of scientists and engineers per 1000 people in the U.S., Germany, and Japan dwarfs the number in many other developed countries (from Geography 20. Find). Variations within countries are equally striking (cite). Focusing the means of cognition have become as defining to the success of cities as are means of production.

To be sure, creativity is not a new idea; it is as old as Genesis 1, after all! But beginning especially in the 19th century, a number of intellectual movements made creativity increasingly internal to their understanding of human action as such (Joas, The Creativity of Action): Herder on Expression; Marx on Revolution and Praxis; Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, and Simmel on Life; Weber on Charisma; Durkheim on Collective Effervescence; and James, Dewey, and Mead on Intelligence and Pragmatic Improvisation. Schumpeter’s “creative destruction” built innovation and not only cost-effective production into the core of economic activity, and Jane Jacobs made surprise and disorder the very stuff of urban experience (Jacobs, see also Sennett). These movements congeal in what Howard Rosenberg called “the tradition of the new” (Rosenberg).

In the 20th century, and especially since the 1960’s, this tradition, formerly more exclusive to an intellectual and artistic “avant-garde,” diffused to the broader public (Clark NPC, Taylor, cite many others). Key drivers include mass education, mass communication, increased geographic mobility (many cites), the sense that life’s fragility, unsettledness, and alterability, made unavoidable by two world wars, is a basic existential condition of modern societies (Joas), “expressive” reactions against a stifling, bureaucratic, overly rational culture (Marcuse), the need of capitalism to constantly generate new needs (Bell), as well as internal value-pressure within western culture toward individuality, “inner-worldly” activism, and valorization of constant motion and readiness to begin anew (Weber, Parsons, Taylor). Personalities formed on the basis of the disciplined Protestant Work Ethic made room for the Bohemian and Romantic quest for authenticity and expressiveness, unsettling distinctions between work and play (Taylor, Bell, Brooks, Campbell).

In this intellectual, cultural, and historical context, questions about how to institutionalize and internalize the value of creativity in cities and individuals have naturally become central. What infrastructure, education, work environments, public policy, etc. best harness the human creative potential? How can artistic, entrepreneurial, and scientific endeavor be instituted as activities unto themselves, and combined with one another in ways that enhance the broader public good? With questions like these, “the Creative Class” seems on its way to self-consciousness.

Factors of Creative Cities. No doubt the “creative cities thesis” has generated much hype, and with it, ample opportunities for derision and scorn (Chatterton 2007).

One popular youtube video, “Juicing the Creatives,”1 depicts “creativity fields” where an old English farmer grows various assortments of hipsters and artists, before distilling their essence into “creativity juice” to be sold on the open market.

Much of this response is justified and understandable. Advocates have promoted one-dimensional, one-size-fits-all quick fixes that generalize from single cases. A Bilbao for every city! Bike paths for all! Bohemias everywhere! Attract The Gays and the Rest will follow!

Such unilateral and rigid approaches defy the very fluidity, situation-specificity, and nuance so central to successful creative endeavor. Thus, we introduce scenes as factors that contribute to creative cities, and assess their impacts on the creativity of cities as indicated by patents, job growth, population, rents, and wages in reference to and interaction with a number of other key factors. Thriving scenes are elements of a creative environment, but they are not the only ones, and they often operate to enhance other components. A thick labor market plus a thriving music scene might be more significant than either on its own; stable residential communities plus a family-focused scene might generate a more stimulating city than either would separately; warm weather plus an exciting festival scene might be more energizing than each would be independently.

We thus analyze the contribution of scenes to the creativity of cities together with other factors typically cited as causes of creative cities. We first list a range of potentially key factors of creative cities, along with their theoretical connection to innovativeness. We then discuss how scenes may add to and alter the impacts of these factors. And then we offer some empirical analysis that demonstrates that and how scenes can contribute to creative cities, in different ways, in different contexts.

Education. The success of creative cities has been linked with the consequences of the explosion of higher education in the U.S. and globally. Universities, not factories, are increasingly at the centers of successful cities. Berkeley, Stanford, and Silicon Valley provide perhaps the most famous example. The relative success of Columbus, Ohio versus Cleveland, Ohio – the former with Ohio State University at its center, the latter struggling after the decline of steel – speaks to a more general significance.

Talcott Parsons considered the “educational revolution” to be as important as the industrial revolution in that it bound productivity more explicitly to cultural factors like scientific research, organization, and intelligence. Daniel Bell linked “the coming of post-industrial society” to the rising social power of professional groups (see also Melin 2003, Info Society Reader). Robert Reich ties success in the new, global economy to “mind workers” especially trained in the manipulation of symbols (Work of Nations). Richard Florida connects the “means migration” of educated, skilled persons to a relatively small number of densely populated regions with success in the creative economy.

These and other ideas suggest that education is a central factor in creative cities. What is the connection between education and creativity? A number of pathways may be cited. Increased education means that decisions are increasingly based on symbols and cultural meanings, rather than tradition or custom. Symbols are infinitely more malleable and manipulable than stuff; they can be combined in limitless ways, and can harness and control vast quantities of energy (cite info theory). The scientific method presses relentlessly toward new discoveries. Theories are born to be surpassed (Weber). XXX:

1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hgYwTELj-fs

TNC: Don't need weberWeber for this; drop maybe ¼ of referncesreferences, espesp. the long lists? More specifics the better. END COMMENT. Education opens persons to alternative ways of living and thinking, breeding a more critical stance on life that is less willing to accepting the world as given.Mass higher education institutionalizes innovation in more organizations and internalizes it in more individuals (Clark, Admin Quarterly, NPC books). Research Universities and R&D investment are strongly associated with regional increases in knowledge production (Jaffe 1989, Autant-Bernard 2001; Acs 2002; Fritsch and Slavtchev 2007.

Tnc read to here

Look in Hoekman for full refs). Through training engineers, computer scientists, and other more technical professionals, scientific innovation and values diffuse from universities into firms and cities more widely. Through the humanities and some social sciences, values of critique, aesthetic novelty, and “paradigm-shifting” spread (Lipset, Altbach, Shils Swiss guy ajs paper on Dutch, Zimmerman friend in Geneva, prof of soc there, applied opportunity structure?). Creative designs, style, and marketing join with technological innovation, as in the ipod.

Thus, higher concentrations of educated individuals should generate stronger value-commitment to and capacity for novelty, leading, via humanistic critique and scientific innovation, to more creative cities. TEmpirically, this suggests that cities with higher concentrations of college graduates and professional school graduates, more research universities, and more research and development centers, would be leaders in various Creative City Dependent Variables (CCDV), generating more patents of all kinds, as well as more jobs, higher wages, increasing rents, and population. Good to set off some key ideas in italics/propositions.

Technology. Educated residents are thought to be factors in creative cities in part because they are more likely to be skilled producers and users of high technology. But technology may well be a significant factor in its own right, linked with its own distinct processes. Florida, for example, links creative cities not only to “talent” but also to “technology.” Acs 1999 ties high technology employment to urban success. OTHER CITATIONS ABOUT SPECIFICALLY TECH HERE.

Technology, however, is more than machines and enhanced craft-tools, as Heidegger and Parsons and others pointed out. Technology may make cities into centers for innovation by promoting a certain outlook on existence: the world can be altered, transformed in new ways; nature – human or otherwise -- is not fixed and given.

Critics treat this as “domination,” leading to environmental disaster, the decline of craftsmanship (Sennett), and impoverished personal connection to Mother Nature (cites). Yet the “technological understanding of being” goes deeper than satisfying a range of given human wants and needs. It involves expanding and continually transforming our options for what we might want (Dreyfus, Spinosa, Borgmann). Its “instrumental-activist” value-pattern means never being finished, being always already on the move to a new understanding of self and world (Parsons, Social System).

Wikipedia, in contrast to Encyclopedia Britannica, exemplifies the difference. A Britannica article purports to tell you how things stand with its topic. It is finished, and

fixes its subject in place. It aims at mastery. A Wikipedia article is never over, one link takes you to another. It does not claim to be the last word on its subject, but encourages “wikiquests,” where one follows the links to somewhere else. Wikipedia embodies the creative potency of the technological standpoint: nothing is fixed and given, all is in flux, in motion to Whatever Comes Next.

Thus, where there is more technology, we would expect there to be more creative production. Empirically, this means that the presence of high concentrations of technological jobs and technological firms would be significantly linked with CCDV’s, and that this connection would not be explained away by how educated a city’s residents may be. Further, we might expect that the interaction between education and technology would predict CCDV’s more strongly than each would separately.

Social Climate. In addition to education and technology, creative cities may well be fostered by the social climate within which firms and individuals operate. Many authors posit a link between, on the one hand, diversity, openness, and tolerance, and, on the other, innovation (Florida, Gates, Kotkin, Trip, others). Places whose residents value tolerance support an environment in which alternative styles, unconventional ideas, and diversity in thought and practice, can flourish. Florida and Gates treat percent gays as an indicator of this sort of climate, not because gays are or are not particularly creative, but because their presence might indicate a tolerant city. Though Clark 2003 shows the link between gays and tolerance is generally spurious, as the specific impact of gays is explained by education, other more direct indicators of a generally egalitarian social climate may well vindicate the link between tolerance and creativity.

Other social climates might also feed into creative cities. For example, science is not (simply) a democracy2. It does not value all contributions equally, but favors achievement, success, and results (cite). More generally, as Tocqueville noted, “achievement” and “equality” are competing, but equally basic, democratic values (Lipset Am Excpetionalism). Cities with intense achievement and outcome-oriented social climates might be centers of creative production to an equal or greater degree than are tolerant cities. Moreover, much creative endeavor may be sparked by conflict rather than harmony. Cities that are “too tolerant” might sap this particular source of innovation (Landry 2000, Sennett The Uses of Disorder, Coser The Function of Conflict). If everybody is a radical, nobody is. By contrast, if egalitarian and achievement-oriented social climates promote creative cities, traditionalistic, hierarchical, and parochial social climates might inhibit them. This is not to say that tradition is “bad.” But, whatever is “good” about a traditionalistic social climate – stability, settledness, security, clear distinctions between good and bad – might be less hospitable to fostering successful creative cities.

Thus, we would expect cities with distinct social climates to exhibit differential degrees of success in the creative economy. Empirically, residents’ value-attitudes expressed in response to the DDB lifestyle survey would be linked with CCDV’s. More egalitarian responses would indicate a more tolerant social climate, which could in turn

2 This is not to suggest that science is not constrained by “external” factors, or that scientific results might be enhanced through transparency and channeled to the public good through democratic constraints (see Guston 2004). It is only to point out that scientific questions, by their very nature, are not decided by majority rule. What they are decided by is, of course, a matter of endless dispute.

generate more CCDV’s. Yet more utilitarian responses would indicate a more outcome-oriented social climate that might also lead to more CCDV’s. Cities with small, concentrated pockets of transgressive residents, embedded in a less radical, more traditionalistic social climate, might also generate more CCDV’s. This could be indicated by high Bohemian/transgressive zip code scores within more traditionalistic, neighborly, localistic county scores, or by high scores on both tradition and transgression on the DDB. By contrast, cities whose residents express highly traditionalistic, localistic, neighborly, anti-transgressive, and anti-egalitarian DDB scores might lead to fewer CCDV’s.

Transportation and Communication. Jane Jacobs famously linked the creativity possible within a city to its transportational and communicative possibilities. Solitary ideas die; interaction with others enhances them (Mead, Dewey). Long commutes to and from work can be mentally deadening. Opportunities to collaborate with others specializing on similar topics may improve the work of all, as the incidence of coauthored papers is steadily rising (Hoekman). Linking work, home, and leisure more closely physically may link them more closely psychologically; individuals might not “shut off” outside of work, but instead interact within multiple networks that stimulate new ideas. Mixing residence, work, and play more closely may create a lively street environment, in turn creating that buzzing sea of interaction within which ideas can circulate and mutate while individuals can bump into others from all walks of life. Walk.com provides a Walk Score for over 2500 zipcodeszip codes based on its proximity to a number of amenities such as restaurants, schools, bars, museums, and more.

Florida argues that the primary contribution of cities to creativity lies in dense communication and interaction networks providing talented persons the opportunities to meet and learn from others and to start collaborative projects. Smart people stuck in Podunk, he suggests, do not have the opportunities to cultivate the skills that the connections they can make in large cities provide. Sassen and Glaeser tie the success of cities to the ease with which they allow information to flow among firms, a factor especially crucial, they suggest, to financial markets. Much work in the geography of innovation has shown that spillover effects are central to innovation (as summarized by Hoekman 2008). Knowledge is not easily contained in one firm, and when knowledgeable individuals change jobs (Almeida and Kogut 1999), start their own firms (Klepper 2007), or exchange knowledge informally with others (Lissoni 2001), innovate ideas spread rapidly. Such exchanges are known to be highly geographically concentrated (Breschi and Lissoni 2001; Egeln et al. 2004).

Thus, cities whose transportation and communication networks bring residents together may be better incubators of the sorts of interactions which lead to higher levels of creative work in the aggregate. Empirically, this would suggest that lower travel times to work, more users of public transportation, and more individuals working from home would lead to higher CCDV’s. It might also suggest a link between residential population density and CCDV’s, or perhaps the hypothesis that higher ratios of residents to jobs to amenities (that is, greater overlay of living, working, and playing) would lead to more CCDV’s. We might also expect that dense concentrations of individuals working within specific specialties might generate more innovation. At the same time, the presence of a diverse range of industries and specialties might also be an important driver of innovation.

Artists. Education, technology, social climate, and transportation/communication are all important factors that contribute to creative cities in different ways. But the presence of a critical mass of active artists might be an independent factor, not reducible to these others, driving creative production in cities. Of course, it is only relatively recently that self-expression, novelty, and creativity have become central values for artists. Medieval painters didn’t sign their names on their work, and many in the classical style tried to embody and affirm a tradition rather than their unique take on the world. But artists are masters at taking material offered up by the world – stone, color, sound, etc. – and refashioning that material into something new that embodies human meaning. More generally, as Daniel Bell suggests, avant-garde sensibilities of novelty and contingency have in the past century come to dominate the cultural sphere in general and artistic work in particular, though there are of course numerous exceptions (cite).

How might the presence of artists lead to more creative cities? Most straightforwardly, concentrations of artists suggest concentrations of individuals devoted to creative endeavor as such. Artists here refers to painters, writers, musicians and others engaged in many symbolic/expressive media creation, although concrete measurement is a serious issue. Moreover, artists often become linked with specific cities, perhaps helping to define those cities as special sites of creative inspiration: Saul Bellow in Chicago, Allen Ginsberg in San Francisco, Bob Dylan in Greenwich Village, Baudelaire and Balzac in Paris, Kurt Cobain in Seattle, John Steinbeck in Monterey, Georgia O’Keefe in Santa Fe, RembrantRembrandt in Amsterdam, Kafka in Prague, and more. Whatever drew these artists to these places initially, such connections between artist and city might well help to sustain these cities as muses for others, attracting tourists and residents as well. Independently of its technology, education, social climate, etc., Chicago is, in part, as stimulating as it is because residents and visitors can draw on Bellow’s representations of it; Monterey, CA is in part a haven for creative artists because John Steinbeck romanticized its past.

Not only does artistic endeavor lead by itself to creative outputs like paintings, novels, musical works, and so on, but artistic work is embedded within “art worlds” (Becker) that employ many others in creative work, from stage managers to museum staff to art dealers. Further, workplaces increasingly resemble artists’ studios in many ways, not least in that they require many artists for services like graphic design or web design or product design or marketing or voice-overs or advertising copy (Markusen). Artists sell their work to firms, creating a more stimulating and interesting work environment, and sometimes lead workshops for employees. More generally, high concentrations of artists might well contribute to high quality of life, attracting talented and artistically inclined workers to firms (Florida, Markusen). Lets keep definitions and consequences as distinct as possible; otherwise all is muddled.

Typically, authors who have empirically studied the connection between artists and creative cities have focused on artists as a monolithic group. Yet different kinds of artists might be linked with creative cities in different ways, and some not at all. Sleepy Carmel, CA is home to numerous landscape and pastoral painters. But Carmel is not a center for creative industries like software design or biotechnology. Large numbers of graphic artists might feed into design and advertising jobs, adding value through their creativity to firms’ output, but the High Art tradition may foster values opposed to economic success, technology, and the market.

Thus, we might well expect that where there are more artists, there would be both more total jobs and more creative output from the economy more generally. That is, more arts jobs should lead to more CCDV’s. But me might also expect concentrations of different kinds of artists to lead to different aspects of cities being emphasized: more graphic design (and “practical arts”) might lead to more technology patents; more “impractical” arts might lead to less technology, and more artistic patents, or even fewer patents.

Nature. Kant held that aesthetic appreciation of nature’s beauty provoked spontaneous play among our faculties that could not be reduced to rules. He also wrote of the sublime experience of awesome mountains and oceanic depths as shattering our sense of stability and settledness. Romantics celebrated the wilds of nature, seeing in its unpredictability a source of creativity beyond rational calculation and aesthetic harmony. Transcendentalists saw in nature an expression of the divine whole that could be mixed with human will in the production of art.

These and other cultural and intellectual traditions would suggest that cities with natural assets might have advantages in inspiring creative work, and that different sorts of natural environments would be linked with different types of creative work. For example, Van Ulzen 2007 (in Romein and Trip) suggests that many architects and designers choose to live in more industrial Rotterdam over more tourist-oriented and cultural Amsterdam because of Rotterdam’s port city image and the inspiration provided by “the rhythm of the river.” Populations in U.S. Sunbelt cities are booming, primarily among older persons (Clark 2003), leading Kotkin (2000) to suggest that natural assets are less attractive to creative talent who prefer the action of central cities, while, by contrast, Clark forthcoming (Grey Creative Class) suggests that age creativity is not the exclusive property of the young. The proximity of the Bay Area to crashing waves and wild Redwoods and non-US examples? Australia New Zealand Vancouver? of Los Angeles to inviting surf may well provide independent stimuli to and resources for the distinct sorts of creative work residents of these cities pursue. Cultivating the beauty of viewing and the pleasure of playing in Lake Michigan has been one of the central pillars of Chicago’s recent urban cultural policy successes (cites?). OTHER REFERENCES AND EXAMPLES?

More generally, these potential linkages between a city’s natural assets and its creativity may lead us to formulate a number of empirical propositions. We might expect that, controlling for education, income, etc.: temperate warm climates would be linked with population increase in general; that coastal cities might be strongly linked with CCDV’s; that cities with easy access to national parks and wildlife reserves might have more CCDV’s; that the interaction effects of artists and various natural assets would lead to more CCDV’s than either would otherwise….OTHER, ESPECIALLY INTERACTIONS. THAT IS, NATURE PLUS TECHNOLOGY, OR EDUCATION. OR MOUNTAINS VS. FOREST VS. OCEAN VS. RIVERS VS. LAKES VS. DESERT.

Do we want to frame all or most of these propositions as interacting positively? Can estimate with log/log model for that reason. We discussed in July or so, and tentatively agreed to do so. This is also call a Cobb Douglas production function; used in City Money.

Bohemia. In addition to education, technology, communication-transportation, nature, and artists, the presence of thriving Bohemian neighborhoods has been the subject

of much recent theorizing about what makes for creative cities (Jane Jacobs Life and Death of cities, Ed Glaser paper in J of Urban Affairs on Jacobs, Lloyd, Florida, Clark… others specifically using the term bohemia?).

What kind of connection might there be between the presence of bohemian neighborhoods and creative cities? Bohemias are more than artists. Most bohemians are not themselves artists, but dress, speak, and consume in an “arty” way (cite and quote some articles from Grana’s collection). Bohemian neighborhoods spatially concentrate individuals against The Establishment, producing a common mood of transgressing the rules in a quest for unusual, exotic experiences. Bad is Good: crime, marginal groups, drugs, may all be positively valued: quote CB and RL on “the horror.” Bohemias are always already dying, mourning the loss of a special authentic moment in the past. They are beset by “constitutive nostalgia” (Lloyd), and so always restlessly moving within the crisis moment between sunset and sunrise, Old and New. Bohemias arise in and celebrate transitional, liminal moments: Paris in the mid-19th century, Greenwich Village and Haight-Ashbury in the 60’s, Wicker Park in the 90’s. Bohemias crystallize in a place the spirit of transgression, but they need not be revolutionary – Marx and Benjamin and Sartre criticized bohemians for being more concerned with etiquette, manners, and experiences than transforming the economic bases of society.

All of this makes bohemian neighborhoods – filled with used clothing boutiques, late night bars, tattoo parlors, smoke shops, galleries, ethnic restaurants, marginal individuals, etc. -- highly suitable as laboratories for generating new consumption styles. Analogous on the consumption side to scientific R&D on the production side, they are integrally connected to, and not necessarily in combat with, the creative economy (Campbell). Where it is important for firms to be on the cutting edge and to appeal to youth, edginess, difference, otherness, retro style, then the presence of a Bohemia could be a key factor. Bohemias also provide cultural economies with “useful labor.” Not only in the form of artists and designers, but also in all the support staff, marketers, and executives who can go to the bars and find out what is hip (Eliz Currid, The Warhol Economy). They can consume on the edge of accepted conventions, without themselves having to be artists or revolutionaries, and so feel that they are true to the bohemian spirit they learned to value in college and culture.

Thus, the presence of thriving bohemian communities would add to creative workplace by providing relatively safe spaces for more educated workforce that has internalized avant-garde culture to experiment with new styles, see what emerges and incorporate it into their work. This may not mean that higher scores on a bohemian index would in all cases and contexts lead to more CCDV’s. Rather, we might hypothesize that in counties with high bohemian scores in the aggregate, bohemian neighborhoods would provide less creative stimulus: if the Establishment is the anti-Establishment, then the Edge is blunted. By contrast, in more traditionalistic counties, we might expect Bohemian neighborhoods to lead more strongly to CCDV’s: here there is something against which a Bohemian can stand; there is an Old World whose passing is to be lamented and a New World whose momentaneous birth is to be channeled.

Scenes. The liveliness of a city’s scenes has also been cited as a key engine driving “the city as an entertainment machine.” Being surrounded by “buzz” may be central to much creative endeavor (Storper and Venables, 2002). Scott 2000 ties “buzz” to linked networks of cultural producers, like musicians, filmmakers, or writers. Others

focus more explicitly on concentrations of spaces and places devoted to sociable consumption. Landry 2000 writes of the importance of “third-spaces” like cafes, restaurants, clubs, bars, record shops and bookstores. These are neither work nor home, and as such offer spaces for unplanned encounters unconstrained by the conventions of either, enhancing and refocusing personal creativity. Kotkin treats central city cultural areas as attractive to creative workers because “that is where the action is,” while Florida 2002 and Glaeser 2001 suggest that a lively street scene contributes to a successful creative city. Clark 2003 and Florida 2005 claim that by generating interesting experiences amenities like operas, juice bars, bike paths, rare bookstores and more contribute to an innovative atmosphere.

Clark 2003 stresses that what is interesting varies for various sub-cultures. Florida initially stressed the creative class as opposed to others, but in 2008 divideds the “creative class” into various sub-groups according to age and lifestyle. Kotkin 2000 distinguishes between the different built environments attractive to “nerds” and to young childless couples. The Theory of Scenes developed in chapters 2 and 3 adds much more subtlety to these distinctions, treating scenes less as a series of opposed Types – Nerds vs. Bohemians, etc. – and more as a matter of a range of analytic elements – self-expression, transgressiveness, charismatic authority, local authenticity – that may combine in numerous ways in varying degrees. Asking whether a city’s scenes provide more or less occasion for self-expression, combined with more or less occasion for transgression or glamoursness and so on, provides offers a more powerful way to compare many cities and different sets of amenities, globally. How much scenes may or may not contribute to creative cities can be investigated in a way that would not be possible by only determining whether cities have single amenities like juice bars vs. operas or single scenes like Nerdistan or Bohemia.

More generally, the addition of focus on scenes as spaces of sociable consumption builds on and enhances the other factors of creative production noted above. To education and technology, the scene-factor adds the presence of interesting and attractive spaces for consumption. A workplace in an office park surrounded by only smart people and technology may well be less creative and innovative than one embedded in a scene, surrounded by cafes, restaurants, clubs, bars, galleries, festivals.

To nature, the scene-factor adds the notion that “nature” is not a natural category. The creative mood along the Big Sur Coast arises not only through the cliffs and the ocean but through restaurants that hang out over the water or through institutions like the Henry Miller Library that celebrate, as Big Sur Resident Miller did, the wild side of life beyond the constraints of “civilization.” The Miami Beach stimulates the kind of mood it does not only because of the sandy beaches or the warm water, but also through the beach clubs, bars, cafes, restaurants, amusement parks, etc. With a scene to channel and celebrate its energies, nature might become a more significant factor for creative endeavor than it would “on its own.” These civilized hybrid scenes of course conflict with the more purist naturalism of the John Muir/Sierra Club. Each type of scene has its devotees.

To artists, the scene-factor adds that a city with many artists, creating much revenue from selling their paintings or albums, may not be stimulating to workplace creativity if that city were to contain only artists. Artists and the arts alone are not enough to make a scene or to determine whether a lively scene has emerged. Musicians in their

basements and recording studios, without clubs; writers in their attic, without cafes and readings; sculptors in their workshops, without sculpture gardens; painters in their studios, without galleries, and so on -- this would be a city with “artists but no art scene” (Sartre). In such a city, the potential connection between artists and high urban quality of life, excitement and vitality contained might lie fallow. Number, type, concentration of amenities is might be as or more important than the number of artists.

To transportation communication, and networks, the scene-factor adds that what is exciting and attractive about dense local networks often involves more than simply being downtown, riding a bus, or conversing at work. Florida 2008 argues that dense connections of educated people are the common factor that make “super star cities” (Gouryeko) super, downplaying potential variations among cities in quality of life and consumption possibilities. Yet Florida’s own interlocutors frequently cite factors like “glamour” as their reason for moving to a particular city over another. Gouryeko “explains” the rise of super star cities by the fact that wealthy individuals are concentrating in them, without asking or theorizing what might lures such individuals; Glaeser goes further by suggesting that high urban rents to wage ratio means that consumption is what is attractive in cities, but does not ask what amenities in what combinations lure the talent and the money. A neighborhood may be walkable in the sense that it contains many amenities within close proximity, but that does not tell us much about the feel of the neighborhood – an equally high Walk Score can be achieved on walk.com thanks to many McDonalds or many local bakeries being nearby. A city may have many different industries, but without diverse scenes, the spillover effects noted by geographers may not occur. In order to informally interact, there needs to be somewhere to meet. And this is likely to occur outside of work. Lively restaurants, cafes, music venues, and so on, may facilitate the informal interactions so central to the spatial concentration of high innovation areas. But which scenes best facilitate the circulation of ideas? Analyzing scenes allows us to develop and test hypotheses about where and how individuals and ideas circulate.

To social climate, the scene factor adds that values are not only “in people’s heads” or “in the air.” They are also performed in concrete places and spaces (Gieryn). A city may contain many residents who value individual self-expression. But without jazz clubs or fusion restaurants or art galleries, that value-attitude might well fail to bewould be harder to translate d into living reality. There would be no special places devoted to cultivating the pleasures of individual self-expression (or glamour or exhibitionism or transgression) in tandem with others. If scenes without a nurturing social climate lie fallow, a social climate without a scene is dead.

To neo-Bohemia, our the scene perspective-factor adds that Bohemia is one scene among many, Chicago is one city among many, , and Wicker Park is one neighborhood among many. Transgressive, rule-breaking scenes might well feed intomake waves in certain kinds of creative cities (like Paris). But glitzy glammy scenes centered on charismatic figures who aren’t necessarily transgressive -- like top chefs or conductors or pop icons -- might as well (like Chicago). The Star might be more of a stimulant to creative work than entering into the Margins. Putnam and others (cites) suggest that interactive activities like bowling or sports clubs rather than passively spectatorial activities (like watching TV) provide more opportunities for collective improvisations that move in unforeseen directions. These cultivate habits of mind hospitable to

creativity and inhospitable to simple acceptance of authority, but need not be unconventional or antinomian (Terry to add more cites of those who claim “interaction leads to creativity”—we have too many cites if anything; we don't need more than some quick cites of some things outside our key areas and literature here; already dense). Nor are New Age scenes particularly Bohemian – they stress contemplative release and bodily awareness rather than Angst. But yoga, meditation, bodywork, and similar practices are diffusing widely [Box Insert on History of Esalen] – even the Government Accountability Office offers yoga at lunch to its employees. These might stimulate creativity as much or more than Bohemian neighborhoods, but through instituting quite different sorts scenes. Bohemia is also more than Urban Grit – X writes that Carmel, CA is a “Rural Bohemia,” and its distinctive mix of Bach and Jazz festivals, art galleries, nature, and quaintness are one factor in attracting and retaining firms that might typically locate in Los Angeles, like Monterey Bay Recording Artists, one of the top booking agencies in the world.

Thus, scenes add a more general theory of sociable consumption to the more singular theory of neo-Bohemia or Nerdistan and so on. We would therefore expect that the presence of collections of different kinds of amenities might provide different kinds of atmospheres encouraging within which different kinds of creative cities might thrive. Moreover, we would expect scenes to contribute to creative cities independently from, but also in interaction with, all of the other factors listed above. To be sure, some all of these can conflict. Science, cognition, and technology can be hostile to aesthetic expression and innovation. Bohemians can want to éepater la bourgeoisieles bourgeois, and see success as a sign of signifying failure. Scenes might be a drain on workforce, sapping workers’ energy away from work-projects into going out on the scene, or even not ever getting a “real” job. Too much scene can be overwhelming, make it hard to concentrate and focus (Bell’s worry). Overinvestment in scenes, like art galleries in Carmel, can lead to stagnation [Box on this]. But they can also mutually enhance one another, in the ways outlined above. We need to be sensitive to both positive and negative interactions. Which scenes, which creativity? That is the question.

Data Analysis Notes, pasted from outline, with TNC’s comments in italics.

1. How to turn these theories about the sources of a creative workplace in education, technology, artists, bohemias, and scenes into testable empirical hypotheses? Treat each of the above as theories of what generates creative workplace, find variables to serve as proxies for them, and include in multiple regressions. Note that we don’t have copyrights, so we lose a lot. But nobody has copyrights at local levels.

a. What dependent variables? These are our standard book DVs in other chapters and that we have been using, except Patents is new here. There are three types I crated at county level, total, hi-tech, and entertainment. Sam and I reviewed the US Patent Office and found noting more recent than in City as Ent. Machine. Now is various versions of Merge20 and earlier from other sources.

i. Patents (of various kinds).

ii. Jobs and change in jobs.iii. Population and change in population.iv. Wagesv. Income

vi. Rentsb. What Independent Variables (in addition to the core)?

i. For “knowledge workers”: education (maybe BA and post-graduate separately?)

ii. For technology: technology firms, or maybe technology jobs.1. I’m dropping “tolerance” from Florida’s three t’s, since

Terry showed that came down to education.iii. For artists: arts jobs, arts revenues – in the future these would be

easier to refine than local firms, and seems to be a more powerful variable statically.

iv. For Bohemia: some individual bohemian YP items, like tattoos, 20th century art galleries, piercing, second hand clothing stores, maybe ethnic restaurants, adult entertainment, custom clothing stores. Go through and compile a list of these. Could also be a good time to (finally) compute a separate independent café or record store or boutique measure, using YP data to select only those cafes and record stores and boutiques with, say, 5 or fewer locations (did Heather Rogers already do something like this?). We need to redo as we added more variables and cases. Not yet—too much work. Also our transgression dimension, and our bohemian/river styx variable. Draw from Social Forces paper, where we outline this, and explain how it matches with expectations for Chicago. Dan: why not try at least the composite Boho index item too, used there? And in various files as Bliss Point Boho? Exact var name?

v. For scenes: our dimensions. Easiest is to compute one main factor based index for each of the 3 sources: Bizzip, YP, DDB. Eric has done for DDB (Sept 3 email to TNC) only as still assembling the 2 first in a new Merge file. Then include specific sub dimensions of the 15 as Dan specified.

vi. What is not clearly laid out here, but important in esp. the Boho section at the end is the combination of say artists or bohos with other non-artists, non-bohos. We might try to compote these with a few rough items that could be even quintile like empiricist or to simplify say 3 hi to low numbers of non-artists as a % of the total population. There are empirically very few 100% artistic areas across 40,000 zip codes, maybe just outliers. So maybe first just try a transformation like log or even deleting the extreme artistic locations as outliers? This is the hardest statistically to model, different from our past more linear additive models.

vii. Note that this is specified as log/log, so either take logs of all individual variables, (adding a small constant to the minimum

score first to make all values greater than zero) OR in stata (maybe Spss?) choose a regression routine that automatically computes logs for all variables. I am not sure how state handled zero, missing, or negative numbers.

c. Then run regressions. First include the other variables, then add scenes, you don't need to run separately to get the b Coefficients if you use the Enter command, all are forced in; but you can run both separately if you want the Variance Explained by the different sets of IVs or other such stats. Aha, as I read below, you are also looking as change in other variables due to the scenes; suppression or interaction, fine. asking if these are significant, and in what contexts (urban vs. rural, gemeinschaft- vs. gesellschaft), for what types of outcomes (patents vs. jobs vs. population, etc.), and how interactions among the variables change picture – that is, if we add scenes to artists and education, or artists to education and bohemia, or other scenes besides bohemia to bohemia and artists and technology, do these change their impacts?

i. Note: could test the “bohemia vs. new age” idea of course by contrasting transgression to self-expression. But maybe more specifically with some of the above individual items for bohemia (like tattoo parlors, body art, or indie cafes) vs. yoga instruction in regressions (with the rest of the core), and dv’’s of patents, jobs, etc. Does yoga or tattoos lead to more patents, jobs, income, wages, etc. is a way of testing relative impact of bohemian edginess vs. new age harmoniousness. Shows how limited it is to only think about Bohemian edginess. Careful too many ecological fallacies as over aggregated. We don't know if the small firm fits or deviates from the whole zip code, etc. Probably keep simple the empirical work for this reason and push on to where we have more strength. Yes if we have all the firms in all the zip codes we are on stronger ground, but there are many other intervening variables between patents and scenes that we don't have measured. And w don’t know how many people got the patents before they moved their current zip code, 10 or 30 years later.

d. Try all permutations for the key IV’s: education, technology, artists, bohemia, scenes dimensions. See last sections of Chapter 5 outline v. 1 for some summaries of analyses on these. Be sure to do bohemia zip codes in more or less Gemeinschaftlisch county quintiles. Other key finding was that glamour way more important for patents than self-expression or transgression. Self-expression was important, I think, but only in the most Gesellschaftlich counties. But check on that.