5 Comments

  1. The creative class is attracted to particular areas as they desire a diversity of experience, and the opportunity to solidify their creative identities. According to Florida, this diversity of experience includes technologies, talent, and tolerance. Ironically, this desire for diversity ultimately results in a loss of diversity as the creative class become the majority, displacing the working class and causing the gentrification of an area.
    As the working class are driven out of these areas as housing and living costs increased, they are either forced to commute or seek employment elsewhere. I can’t help but wonder, what happens to the maintenance of the city itself and the facilities it provides if the working class is heavily displaced?

    #S208UOW17 #tut10 #Mon1130

  2. The development of communities and cities has reached a point where we’re now seeking to create the kinds of communities we want to live in, but that are also economically prosperous and sustainable. Businesses that are looking to get the edge on competitors and drive growth want to draw from “talent pools” gathered in clusters in urban areas, because it happens quicker than if the talent pool is dispersed (Florida 2003, p.5). Time is money. And they want to employ well-educated, diverse, innovative people at the top of their game – the ‘Creative Class’ – to help drive their success. People often want to work in cities is because there are more jobs on offer and the pay is better than elsewhere, but they don’t want long commutes from the ‘burbs to the city – congested traffic, public transport delays and interaction with strangers – so they move as close as they can afford to. Gentrification means traditional housing options in the inner city have become unaffordable (and virtually non-existent) for most. One side effect of this has been single, low-income earners sometimes getting creative in how they navigate this, e.g. setting up “warehomes” – old, industrial inner-city warehouses with commercial leasing cheaper than residential properties, converted into living spaces and shared with others in order to make it affordable (Day 2010). Florida (2003) explains that people these days prefer to have their living, working and playing spaces all within easy reach of each other: lifestyle and culture. Zukin (2008) explores this further, saying that people don’t just want to participate in culture, they want to produce it – they are drawn to hip, urban areas seeking new cultural experiences, but often all they’re doing is co-opting poor/working class culture and reproducing it to appeal to middle-class palates. They are not so much producing culture as consuming it – cafes/restaurants offering ethnic (exotic) foods, farmers markets, food trucks, trendy bars etc – and pushing out whatever remains of genuine poor or working class, because demand = desirability, therefore prices go up. We are now starting to another response to the gentrification of inner city areas – people in their 20s and 30s “revitalising smaller cities or opting for hybridised urban-burb enclaves” (Walker 2015). They don’t want to be in the suburbs, they can’t afford to be in the city, so they’re moving to areas they can afford and recreating the best bits of suburbia, city living and culture in them. There is a city in Queensland, Australia called Springfield being built from scratch, and planners are watching carefully to see how it evolves. Its looks like it might be a version of hybridised urban-suburbia that would really appeal to Florida’s “creative class”, with its development based on “smart city” planning – “people, productivity, efficiency, jobs, and liveability” (Beck2017). It could become the blueprint for how cities are created into the future.

    References
    Day, L 2010, Home is ware the house is for fringe dwellers, news article, 30 May, viewed 13 May 2017,
    Walker, A 2015, Millennials Will Live In Cities Unlike Anything We’ve Ever Seen Before, news article, 17 July, viewed 13 May 2017,
    Beck, A 2017, Let’s talk about planning smart cities, blog post, 11 April, viewed 18 April 2017,

    #S208UOW17 #Tut10 #Mon1130

    • I find what you have written very interesting to consider in regards to students of the University of Wollongong and how these changes and trends affect them. “People in their 20s and 30s “revitalising smaller cities or opting for hybridised urban-burb enclaves”. They don’t want to be in the suburbs, they can’t afford to be in the city, so they’re moving to areas they can afford and recreating the best bits of suburbia, city living and culture in them.”- As rental prices continue to rise, and many students continue to struggle financially, it seems that many are spreading out, further away from the city and the university towards areas that either offer more affordable living-costs, or more employment opportunities. It seems as though Wollongong is becoming a ‘drive-through’ education city in which students balance limited budgets and limited means in order to earn a degree, and then leave, moving toward more liveable and opportunistic areas. I have also found (having moved from a country town) that fewer young adults are seeking tertiary education, or are seeking university education by distance or within rural universities, as the city becomes more unaffordable, and fewer jobs opportunities exist, even for the creative class.

      #S208UOW17 #tut10 #Mon1130

      • I find your observation of Wollongong as a ‘drive-through’ education city interesting, I personally (at this point) have no intention of making a living here after my degrees due to greater opportunities in other areas.

        Recognising distance education is also another good point. With the rise of technology resulting in greater abilities to study/work from home, could this be a future solution to live where we want and do what we want to do without struggling in the gentrified inner city?

Comments are closed.