I will not opine on the subject, since that is not well received by some, but I am interested to know what others think:



How can St. Louis do a better job of attracting the creative class and immigrants to the area (or back to the area)?



(Please don't argue that it is doing an adequate job, there are libraries full of facts which say it is not)



For those that don't know, the author Richard Florida has several books/articles out on the subject, which theorize that cities should be spending their energy and resources on attracting the creative class, instead of on trying to attract corporations. His theory is that jobs follow people, not the other way around. The creative class is defined roughly as the young, educated, intelligent, talented individuals which drive innovation and are the main reason why the United States has stayed ahead of the competition and leads the world in productivity.



You can read more about the creative class here:



http://www.creativeclass.org/index.shtml



I highly recommend it for anyone interested in urban revitalization.

His point is rather obvious in todays global economy. Go to New Delhi today and you will see tons of High Tech company incubators and compounds that followed the cheap labor. In the US though it's a little more arguable, as you have to be able to offer good jobs to bring the creative class in. Most of this class leave the area if the demanding high wage jobs are nowhere to be found. I don't know any other way to really attract large number of these highly demanding, high wage people back without the jobs already in place, so I don't know if I totally buy into his argument on a national level.

I think his point is that intelligent, resourceful people with an entrepreneurial spirit can and do create their own jobs. For example, the percentage of small businesses owned by immigrants exceeds their proportion of the overall population. And, look at all the cities that have experienced tremendous growth almost solely through startups and without attracting a single Fortune 500 company from elsewhere. Austin is a great example, and one that Florida points to repeatedly. And remember, the majority of people in this country are employed by small businesses, not large corporations.



I was initially a skeptic as well. However, the more I have studied the demographics of the fastest growing cities in the country and how they have achieved their growth rates, the more it becomes clear. It is apparent that most of these cities first created an environment that was attractive and conducive to innovation (whether it was a deliberate effort on their part is irrelevant). So, the creative class that was from there, or went to school there, stayed rather than going elsewhere after graduation. This created a critical mass of the creative class which helped to attract even more similar-minded people. And, of course, progressive-thinking capital providers and companies want to be where they are...

Yes that is a good point. Being one who created his own job, I can relate to that, but I also have many friends who have left for what they considered more hospitable business environments. I guess it's a total package with image being a big part of it. People in this demographic usually like more of the grandeur environments, or whatever they see as the trendy place to live. So whatever the city can do toward that would surely help. The momentum has shifted toward that, but much more needs to be done. The big hurdle is getting over the whole Midwest thing. I mean people immediately think boring, bible belt, conservative etc. While this may appeal to some the majority of the younger mobile crowd; or many of the entrepreneurs see otherwise. I saw an article recently on how lagging we are in entrepreneurial startups. I think a lot of work needs to be done in this area.

Well, St. Louis already has more affordable housing than many comparably sized cities. Beyond that, I'd like to really see a concerted effort from state and city officials to do something about the school system, which may be the biggest thing holding back the city. Perhaps less headline grabbing than a new convention center or light rail line, but essential nonetheless.



Look at many of the areas that are growing rapidly today: Reno, NV; Boise, ID; Ft. Myers-Cape Coral, FL; Salt Lake City, UT. They're not the Portlands, San Franciscos, and Austins that Mr. Florida loves. To that extent I don't put much stock in his theory, to my knowledge it's largely been debunked as a product of the boom economy of the late 90's.

2000 Census Data - Top 20 Highest Growth Rates for Metropolitan Areas with populations greater than 1,000,000 between 1990 - 2000:



Las Vegas, NV--AZ MSA 83.3%

Austin--San Marcos, TX MSA 47.7%

Phoenix--Mesa, AZ MSA 45.3%

Atlanta, GA MSA 38.9%

Raleigh--Durham--Chapel Hill, NC MSA 38.9%

Orlando, FL MSA 34.3%

West Palm Beach--Boca Raton, FL MSA 31.0%

Denver--Boulder--Greeley, CO CMSA 30.4%

Dallas--Fort Worth, TX CMSA 29.3%

Charlotte--Gastonia--Rock Hill, NC--SC MSA 29.0%

Portland--Salem, OR--WA CMSA 26.3%

Houston--Galveston--Brazoria, TX CMSA 25.2%

Nashville, TN MSA 25.0%

Salt Lake City--Ogden, UT MSA 24.4%

Miami--Fort Lauderdale, FL CMSA 21.4%

Jacksonville, FL MSA 21.4%

Sacramento--Yolo, CA CMSA 21.3%

San Antonio, TX MSA 20.2%

Seattle--Tacoma--Bremerton, WA CMSA 19.7%

Greensboro--Winston-Salem--High Point, NC MSA 19.2%

. .

. .

. .

St. Louis, MO--IL MSA 4.5%

Pretty interesting topic. Corporate decisions like HQ locations have something to do with my day job, so I've always been interested in getting them and keeping them. What's been said here may very well make more sense. Look at Atlanta--most of the big companies there are homegrown--and that's part of the pride. Do you think that since alot of the higher ed grads in STL stay, the CORTEX thing will help harness more of that creativity?

I assume those census numbers are for population growth? You probably know more about Florida's theory than I do, but my feeling is that it is intended to be a predictor of economic growth rather than population growth, although the two often go hand in hand.



One would expect some of Mr. Florida's cities to do well in the 1990-2000 period, but if we take a look at job growth since 2000, it's a different story. Here is a report from the Milken Institute, ranking the top 200 metro areas by 1 and 5 year job growth:



study



As you can see, decidedly unhip places like Cape Coral-Ft. Myers, FL (#2), Reno, NV (#21) and Provo, UT (#23) fill out the top 25, while Florida's cultural capitals of San Francisco (#173), Boston (#157), and Portland (#95) fare more poorly (for those interested, St. Louis ranked #144).



I personally feel that city leaders shouldn't buy into the creative class hype. Jobs and people are attracted to business friendly environments with affordable housing prices. I have no idea whether places like SF and Boston can continue to thrive as playgrounds for tourists and the wealthy, but in any case, I don't think it's wise for places like Milwaukee, Cleveland, and St. Louis to pursue Richard Florida's strategy.



As I said before, I think the school system is the #1 issue, and it will take a certain amount of tax money to fix that. But on the affordable real estate front, St. Louis performs well.

Good points Jefferson. We do offer that aspect of affordable housing. For keeping the youth though it does make a difference to have the hipness factor. I seen it first hand with my step daughter who wants to go to a fashion school and we were checking out the campus in Chicago. You could just see her drooling at the prospect of walking down Michigan Ave on a daily basis etc. Obviously we can not compete with the bigger cities right now, but it doesn't mean we can stand idly and watch our young talent pool leave the city for some simple image problems. I hear her all the time talk about how she wants to go to these more hip locations, that's why I think it's as simple as an image problem. We don't have to be on the coasts or the size of Chicago to instill a more hip factor for the younger generation. We have some areas like this with the loop etc, but you have to keep your own first IMO before worrying about attracting people from other areas. I mean if you can't keep your own you're not going to attract people from other locations. As the city comes back I see the image slowly shifting already. It will take time of course, but I think we have a start in that direction anyway.

The creative class IMHO on the surface is apart of the times and one aspect of the real creative people who do not always live in hip locations or live the high life. Think Bohemians, artists, thespians, dancers, musicians, and the like. Many do not make a great life or always seek the high profile locations because of the ability to live an affordable lifestyle and still do their gig. In some ways many of these people have been replaced by today's isolationist culture of TV, radio, computers, game systems, and more. Nevermind the creatives as a Florida's classification because we already have them. St. Louis's success will not hinge on the environment like the Sunbelt and Southern CA or America's growing places that feed off these 80/90s fast growth places. Let us remain a reviving City based on preservation, real urbanization, rehabilitation, and yes business friendly to whomever (small businesses).

Short answer? Fix the City's schools. I'd love it if we could become known as THE place to give kids a really good education.

Fixing the City schools would be the best thing we could do for many reasons. We should move heaven and earth to fix the City schools. But, all big cities have crummy schools. It doesn't stop other cities from population and job growth. It effects where people live once they are attracted to a city.



Also, many/most St. Louis suburbs have top schools. St. Louis metro is already considered a good place to raise a family. No one moves away from St. Louis after college because St. Louis is not a good place to raise a family.



Now to my point, St. Louis, like most midwestern cities, already has a good reputation as a good place to raise a family. What we have been missing is the urban, hip, good place to be single, artist, alternative thinker, creative part of things. People that know the city well realize this isn't completely true. But, we must admit that metro St. Louis has a better reputation as a place to raise a family than a place to be young, hip, urban, creative. That is why there has been an emphasis on correcting this situation.



Now, on to a more important point. WHY DO PEOPLE THINK IT HAS TO BE EITHER/OR??? I don't get it. Anything that attracts creatives will also be attractive to everyone. Boston & Portland (mentioned in above posts) are filled with happy, prosperous regular folks that enjoy the amenities as much as the so called creatives. And anything that is attractive to regular folks, such as plentiful jobs, inexpensive housing will also be attractive to creatives. A good example would be Metrolink. Many "creatives" (lack of a better word) would be excited about the North/South Metrolink line. But all people would benefit. Many traditional families would be attracted to St. Louis City, if it were one of the few places in the country that offered an urban environment and excellent public schools. But, creatives would love this, too. Wow, a place I can be an artists, live in a real urban environment, but also start a family. Let's say that Midtown St. Louis became a magnet for artists from all over. People of all types would enjoy seeing Midtown thrive and explode with creative energy. A dead, boring, empty Midtown isn't attracting anyone.



We should be striving for the best of all possible worlds. A top place to raise a family, a top place to be young & single, a top place to creative, a top place to have a career, corporate or otherwise, a place that attracts everyone.

You can't "create" an invronment to attract creative people. Creative people need to be allowed to create their own invironment. My personal observation is that the atmosphere in St. Louis is just still way too conservative, and that has to change.

One prime example: Baton Bob left St. Louis. Now he's in Atlanta where I hear he was very well received, and was recently featured on CNN. Baton Bob was shown he is not appreciated here, so he left. I hardly think one could say Baton Bob was not creative in the most whimsical way.

Stiffle people, and they won't thrive, they'll simply leave...it's that simple.

wasn't his name beetle bob? or are we talking about different people here?

The best way for an area to attract and retain members of the so-called "creative class" is to offer a dense, lively urban core. STL is headed in the right direction.

bpe235 wrote:wasn't his name beetle bob? or are we talking about different people here?

They are 2 different people. Beatle Bob's still around.

bpe235, Beatle Bob and Baton Bob are two different people. Beatle Bob I don't know much about, but I think he's a big Beatles fan.

Baton Bob was the very flambouyant guy who used to wear pink tutus, wedding dresses and such and parade around the CWE with his baton.



LouLou, I couldn'd disagree more with you.. Dense living is not going to draw creative people to our city. St. Louis WAS once very dense, and still creative people left. Freedom of expression and acceptance will bring creative people back. I know, being a creative person myself, many times in the past I wanted to leave St. Louis and many of my creative friends had left to keep from being "smothered". But I've stayed, hoping that the city might change because I love this city, mostly for the architecture. It is truly a unique and beautiful city, but the leadership/status quo has got to loosen up before creative people move in. What good is it to come to a dense, lively urban core if you can't express yourself or be who you are? And even then, how livley can it be without interesting things happen? Interesting things can only happen with creative minds around.

jfknet wrote:People in this demographic usually like more of the grandeur environments, or whatever they see as the trendy place to live. So whatever the city can do toward that would surely help. The momentum has shifted toward that, but much more needs to be done. The big hurdle is getting over the whole Midwest thing. I mean people immediately think boring, bible belt, conservative etc.

Well, if this is true, how do you explain the population growth in metro areas like Austin, Salt Lake City, Kansas City, Charlotte, Greensboro, Nashville, Minneapolis, Indianapolis, Atlanta, Columbus, Memphis, Grand Rapids, and Oklahoma City. (All of these metro areas have greater than 1,000,000 in population and double-digit growth rates between 1990 and 2000).



This is a geographically and historically diverse sample, and thus there is no obvious overarchng trend that explains their robust growth, e.g. Southern and Western migration, influx of immigrants, and none of these areas has any geographic advantage, other than average annual temperature (either lower or higher, whichever you prefer).



Most of these areas have had to overcome major negative geographic or historic biases to achieve their growth, think religious fundamentalism, conservative attitudes, poorly educated locals, slow pace of life, rust-belt decay, extreme climate, etc.



Most of these area have also had to surmount major obstacles such as segregation, racism, inadequate inner city schools, affordable housing, and public transportation, urban vs. suburban growth, decaying infrastructure, sprawl, weak governments, etc. Sound familiar?



And last, I doubt that very few would consider most of the places on this list to be "trendy".



So what is the explanation?

^That's part of the problem, I'm not sure if anyone actaully knows.

Xing wrote:Fixing the schools do help with immigrants, but what about the creative class? I had to move up to Chicago. There really isn't much here, besides an occasional Movie, and graphic design jobs. An Art school would help, as would tax incentives for films.

I think that is an excellent example of the kind of thing cities could and should be doing. A long time ago, there was discussion of making the Old Post Office an arts and cultural education center with Webster, UMSL, Washington University, SLU all contributing talent and resources (all of which are landlocked to varying degrees). I think, with the backing of those institutions, it could have been tremendously successful and would have single-handedly reshaped downtown, by creating an instant market for all of the empty surrounding buildings.



Again, the question is...never mind.

jlblues wrote:

jfknet wrote:People in this demographic usually like more of the grandeur environments, or whatever they see as the trendy place to live. So whatever the city can do toward that would surely help. The momentum has shifted toward that, but much more needs to be done. The big hurdle is getting over the whole Midwest thing. I mean people immediately think boring, bible belt, conservative etc.

Well, if this is true, how do you explain the population growth in metro areas like Austin, Salt Lake City, Kansas City, Charlotte, Greensboro, Nashville, Minneapolis, Indianapolis, Atlanta, Columbus, Memphis, Grand Rapids, and Oklahoma City. (All of these metro areas have greater than 1,000,000 in population and double-digit growth rates between 1990 and 2000).



This is a geographically and historically diverse sample, and thus there is no obvious overarchng trend that explains their robust growth, e.g. Southern and Western migration, influx of immigrants, and none of these areas has any geographic advantage, other than average annual temperature (either lower or higher, whichever you prefer).



Most of these areas have had to overcome major negative geographic or historic biases to achieve their growth, think religious fundamentalism, conservative attitudes, poorly educated locals, slow pace of life, rust-belt decay, extreme climate, etc.



Most of these area have also had to surmount major obstacles such as segregation, racism, inadequate inner city schools, affordable housing, and public transportation, urban vs. suburban growth, decaying infrastructure, sprawl, weak governments, etc. Sound familiar?



And last, I doubt that very few would consider most of the places on this list to be "trendy".



So what is the explanation?

Well I was speaking strictly of the creative class or recent college grad. A couple of those cities are seen as trendy right now like Austin and Minneapolis, but if people are moving to some of these other areas, I would guess it's not much in the way of the creative class. Nashville may get some creative likes moving for their country music scene etc,(Same with Austins night life music scene), but I hear very few college grads or creative class types telling me they can't wait to move to Indianapolis, Columbus Ohio, or Grand Rapids unless of course they were following the jobs LOL.

A decentralized school district where the <a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/ ... -20">money follows the student</a>.



...and the dense, tightly-woven urban core that we're already well on our way to building.

jfknet wrote:Well I was speaking strictly of the creative class or recent college grad. A couple of those cities are seen as trendy right now like Austin and Minneapolis, but if people are moving to some of these other areas, I would guess it's not much in the way of the creative class. Nashville may get some creative likes moving for their country music scene etc,(Same with Austins night life music scene), but I hear very few college grads or creative class types telling me they can't wait to move to Indianapolis, Columbus Ohio, or Grand Rapids unless of course they were following the jobs LOL.

I think Richard Florida's work is misunderstood on that point. Trendiness is only one facet of the things that make a place attractive to the creative class, and in reality trendiness is probably more of a result, than a cause. If you look at most cities that achieve the 'trendy' label, the initial population growth generally precedes the label, so something else is responsible for the population growth. I don't think too many people would have considered Austin or Minneapolis trendy 15 years ago.



There are many different migratory populations: retirees, students, recent grads, medical interns, researchers, the artistic types, trade workers, other specialized workers, first-generation immigrants, unskilled service workers, etc. Obviously the reasons why these groups move are manifold. Census data is generally not detailed enough to break all of these groups down and determine where they came from.



But you can look at some of these areas and eliminate the obvious reasons for the migratory inflow, e.g. the retiree migration (Florida, Arizona), geographic attractions (Denver, Seattle, California, Florida), one-time cheap housing booms (Las Vegas, San Antonio, etc.), the obvious immigration advantage (or disadvantage) of areas in the Southwest, and so on. That leaves areas with no tangible explanation for their growth. These are the areas that I find most interesting.



I believe that many of the things that make a metropolitan area attractive to the creative class are not easily quantifiable, thus many of these areas that experience sudden, unexplained growth may have no idea what is happening. Moreover, I would say that most of the decisions that determine where any given member of the creative class ends up are probably unconscious ones. They would never be able to tell you what specifically they like about a metro areaa, and thus generally resort to nebulous characteristics like 'more opportunitry', 'greater freedom', 'more people that think like me', etc. It also means that cities that pursue a specific development strategy, such as creating an entertainment district, a cultural district, green space, whatever, under the assumption that that project will attract new residents, will probably be disappointed with the results.



In any case, I also think it is pretty obvious what is responsible for the growth in the three cities you mention, Grand Rapids, Indianapolis or Columbus. All three have very large, cheap, highly-regarded Big Ten universities nearby!