This paper discusses the relation of Richard Florida’s notion of creative cities, cluster economics, and urban policies towards creative industries. Two empirical cases, San Diego’s bioscience cluster and Berlin’s club scene, are examined in order to reconstruct their success, analyze corresponding factors, identify challenges and problems, and discuss recent developments. Conclusions will be drawn on what city governments’ policies can or cannot as well as should not do to support creative industries. It will be argued that the scope of urban policies even in a Floridaesque age of creative cities is still wellrelated to (‘traditional’) cluster policies but therefore also limited by scale and dependent on private enterprises and cluster actors that have an active role in attracting other creative people.
Table of Contents
1. Introductory Remarks
1.1. Setting the Stage
1.2. Refuting Florida, Praising Governance, Sidelining Cluster Economics
1.3. Paper Outline
2. Empirical Cases
2.1. San Diego’s Bioscience Cluster
2.2. Berlin’s Club Scene
3. The Scope of Urban Policies
3.1. Beyond the Scope of Urban Policies
3.2. What City Governments Can Do
3.3. Where City Governments Should Be Cautious
4. Concluding Remarks
5. References
Research Objectives and Themes
This paper examines the relationship between Richard Florida’s creative city theory, cluster economics, and urban policy, using San Diego’s bioscience cluster and Berlin’s club scene as case studies to evaluate the actual influence and limitations of city governments in fostering creative industries.
- The effectiveness of "traditional" cluster policies in modern creative city strategies.
- The divergence between "business climate" (influenceable by policy) and "people climate" (driven by creative actors).
- The importance of distinguishing between different types of creative industries, such as high-tech clusters versus alternative niche cultures.
- The potential for city governments to act as facilitators of "global pipelines" for local clusters.
Excerpts from the Book
Berlin’s Club Scene
Taking Berlin’s club scene as an example for creative industries is a quite daunting task, because it is very difficult – if we compare it, for instance, with San Diego’s bioscience cluster – to find exact figures to describe the nature and role of the club scene in and for the city. While most reports subsume parts of the club scene under “music industry” (SenWTF 2012; House of Research 2011), two publications by the Senate Department for Economy, Technology, and Women Issues, a study on the economic potential of Berlin’s club and event sector (SenWTF 2007) as well as the creative industries report (SenWTF 2008) have been more specific. The latter report, for instance, lists 120 clubs, 236 music publishers, 94 recording studios, 65 concert and event management enterprises, and 21 concert and event stages (SenWTF 2008: 105). The music industry is supposed to make revenues of around one billion Euros per year through live events, festivals, and the clubs (Stollowsky 2011).
Taking into account that the scene is still characterized by a significant minority of informal arrangements, a picture of the exact nature of Berlin’s club scene will stay relatively fuzzy. Berlin has a leading role with regard to various creative industries and the importance and impact of its club scene summarizes Rapp (2009) as follows:
This new Berlin that attracts thousands of clubbing tourists every weekend is the party capital of the Western world. It is a city with low rents and liberal public authorities. The reality principle of other cities is deferred in favor of an eclectic lust principle. Nobody has to actually work here, if not in some art or music projects. New clubs are opened incessantly and, in fact, people are clubbing all the time. This is really it. (own translation; 33-34)
Summary of Chapters
1. Introductory Remarks: Sets the stage by reviewing Richard Florida’s creative city concept and highlighting the author's critique of current research gaps regarding urban policy and cluster economics.
2. Empirical Cases: Analyzes the success factors, challenges, and recent developments of San Diego's bioscience cluster and Berlin's club scene.
3. The Scope of Urban Policies: Synthesizes findings from both cases to determine what city governments can effectively influence versus factors beyond their control, and where they should exercise caution.
4. Concluding Remarks: Summarizes the research findings, confirming that while urban policy influence is limited, cities can still foster creative development through strategic infrastructure and network support.
5. References: Provides a comprehensive list of literature and sources cited throughout the paper.
Keywords
Creative Cities, Cluster Economics, Urban Policy, Bioscience Cluster, Berlin Club Scene, Richard Florida, Governance, Cultural Industries, Urban Development, Local Buzz, Global Pipelines, Creative Class, Regional Culture, Entrepreneurship, Creative Industries
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the primary focus of this paper?
The paper evaluates the effectiveness and scope of urban policies in supporting creative industries, specifically analyzing whether modern "creative city" agendas can be aligned with traditional cluster economic policies.
What are the central thematic fields covered?
The core themes include cluster economics, urban governance, the role of creative industries in city branding, and the limitations of municipal intervention in fostering specialized creative economies.
What is the research question driving this study?
The primary goal is to determine how city governments can (or cannot) support creative industries, and to argue that their scope of action is often limited by scale and dependent on private sector actors.
Which methodology is employed in this research?
The author uses a comparative empirical case study approach, examining the development and policy contexts of San Diego’s bioscience cluster and Berlin’s club scene.
What topics are discussed in the main body?
The main body covers the history and success factors of the two case studies, the specific challenges they face (such as gentrification and policy neglect), and the varying roles of city government in shaping these industries.
Which keywords best characterize this work?
The work is defined by terms such as Creative Cities, Cluster Economics, Urban Policy, Governance, and Cultural Industries.
How does San Diego’s bioscience cluster differ from Berlin’s club scene in terms of policy needs?
San Diego’s cluster benefits from formal infrastructure support and integration into standard economic development, whereas Berlin’s club scene is an alternative, informal culture that risks losing its authenticity if subjected to heavy-handed city branding or formalization.
What is the author’s stance on the role of local government?
The author argues that while governments can influence the "business climate," the "people climate" is essentially formed by the creative actors themselves, meaning governments should be cautious and sometimes passive to preserve the niche nature of alternative industries.
What is the "Clubsterben" phenomenon mentioned in the text?
It refers to the "dying of clubs" in Berlin due to rising rents, financial pressure, and conflicts with city regulations, which has sparked criticism regarding the city's lack of understanding of the economic and cultural value of the club scene.
Why are "global pipelines" important to this study?
The author discusses global pipelines as essential outside connections for local clusters, which city governments can actively support through trade fairs, regional branding, and diplomatic missions to ensure local industries remain globally competitive.
- Quote paper
- B.A. Renard Teipelke (Author), 2012, San Diego’s Bioscience Cluster and Berlin’s Club Scene, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.hausarbeiten.de/document/230180
