The ego(t)ism of the creative class?

Jos Gadet, Amsterdam's Senior Town Planner, is a strong believer in the urban fabric as defined by Jane Jacobs: an "organised complexity" where "a sizable number of factors... are interrelated into an organic whole". In biology and economy diversity is an important factor of success and the cause for the success of cities like New York, London and Amsterdam. The urban fabric is the spontaneous result of rational decisions of inhabitants, entrepreneurs and visitors, who see the advantages of the city despite its higher costs.

For the first time in Western history, human capital has become the most important factor of production. Routine jobs have often disappeared to low wage countries. The creative economy is almost completely oriented on delivering services, which do not necessarily require higher education. Many do however, and they can only thrive in an urban environment with concert halls, cinemas and cafés. The "creative knowledge economy" is spatially concentrated in agglomerations. Its costs and results are uncertain and therefore outsourced by large corporations to very small companies that need proximity to prosper. Exposure to new ideas helps generate useful ideas: Mr. Gadet applies Porter's theory of industry clusters. 50% of the people in Amsterdam work in the "creative knowledge" sector. The real-time spontaneous character of communication technology like Blackberry Messenger and Twitter makes people want to meet more rather than less. The urban fabric gives people multiple reasons to be in a place at multiple times and greases the wheels of the creative economy. Three quarters of the price of land in the city is defined by its proximity to "urban amenities" (p.118).

The Sloterplas, a large lake in a park in the Modernist western suburbs, is now very quiet. People have less spare-time, more money and a higher education. They no longer cycle in the park or swim in the lake and make fewer visits to the homes of friends. Instead they meet them in cafes or restaurants and "purchase experiences". Parks around the city centre are busier than ever, even with people working. Amsterdam's centre has a unique ratio between workers and inhabitants (1:1; Munich 9:1), resulting in a higher density of pubs than in London or Berlin.

Amsterdam's 17th century city centre and the 19th century ring that surrounds it are easier to convert to new functions than the areas developed in the 20th century, particularly those that were developed in the second half of the twentieth century. The 19th century buildings are on smaller parcels of land and have a structure that is easier to convert from home to shop or office or vice versa.

Mr. Gadet compares the suburbs that surround the Sloterplas with the Parisian banlieues, that were very much influenced by Le Corbusier, whom Mr. Gadet clearly hates (he enthusiastically quotes Theodore Dalrymple's remark that "Le Corbusier was to architecture what Pol Pot was to social reform"). He does not "think" the planners of the suburbs hated their future inhabitants. This proofs Mr. Gadet's lack of interest in this subject. He has a point that these suburbs are not very popular and have a large population of immigrants with a low education, but he hardly discusses if the unidirectional supply of houses, a heritage from a poorer era with an exploding population. Mr. Gadet claims that the mixing of social classes always works, without discussing in detail studies that deny this. I have more sympathy for his criticism of social housing of the 1980's. They offer little possibilities for transformation and have higher levels of unemployment than the remaining buildings from before the Second World War. Social housing as envisaged by social democrats is deliberately lifeless, because social democrats do not like entertainment; they can only appreciate education. Following Hans Paul Bahrdt and Max Weber, Mr. Gadet sees the market as the exemplary space of a city (p.149). Pre-industrial cities came into existence because of the economic need for a market. Market, public space and openness have grown organically. Industrial cities like Rotterdam, Duisburg or Detroit have only piled labour for mono-functional industrial activities. They find it difficult to adapt.

Mr. Gadet is not an advocate of small scale, however. He is quite positive about the Wibautstraat (Amsterdam's "Stalinallee") for its flexibility and the area around Amsterdam's football stadium that performs an essential function with a national significance.

Is Mr. Gadet's vision true and is it democratically legitimate? Is concentration on the needs of creative knowledge workers the best Amsterdam (and Holland) can accomplish given its population and opportunities? Is it what the majority of citizens want?

The book does not bring many data that support its thesis. Many successful consultants I know may often work in Amsterdam, but few live there. Many jobs in services are due to the city's thriving tourism industry and its international airport. The larger companies employing Florida's "creative professionals" (head offices of multinationals, law firms, banks) have all moved out of the urban fabric to the ring road. They require large offices, plenty of parking space and access to motorways, which the 17th and 19th century fabric cannot deliver. These are highly educated people with good salaries that could improve Amsterdam's economy. Their employers sponsor essential components of the city like the Concertgebouw and the city's modern art museum. The 19th century neighbourhood De Pijp that Mr. Gadet loves for its diversity and cafes also has many streets with a low number of (visible) small businesses. Mr. Gadet gives no numbers of the self employed in these areas. He is however right that flats in these areas have the highest square foot prices. But not all areas that could be considered part of the "urban fabric" have these high prices. Mr. Gadet pays little attention to relative poverty of neighbourhoods. He simply states that the poor live in these areas, because the areas are not attractive for others. To me it seems that areas closer to expensive areas have a higher chance of gentrification, independent of structure, as long as the ownership of these houses can change. Social housing all in the hands of corporations in areas with little purchasing power have little chance.

Equally, some of the Modernist areas are quite successful. These are the newer areas with larger flats and a lower percentage of immigrants from third world countries, like Buitenveldert and parts of Amstelveen (that are popular with Amsterdam's Japanese and Korean communities). At the same time, large parts of the city centre have become a playground for tourists. Its "urban fabric" supplies services to drunken Brits and Italian drug tourists, rather than the city's inhabitants. Also, my short drive through Silicon Valley (I do not get my travelling sponsored like Mr. Gadet) did not give me the idea that the urban fabric was particularly well developed there. Idem Los Angeles, a city with a large creative industry.

All the examples Mr. Gadet gives (the authentic cafes, the weekends to Berlin and Schiermonnikoog) suggest he mainly frequents a "bohemian bourgeois" milieu. Such people constitute only a minority of the city's and the country's population. Authenticity does not seem to interest that many people, as any cursory look at the countryside will proof.

Born and raised in the cultural dessert that is Limburg, Mr. Gadet has no qualms about the born Amsterdamers leaving the city, to be replaced by outsiders like himself.

Which does not mean that Amsterdam could "roll out" more urban fabric, e.g. in the industrial areas between the 19th century city and the Modernist suburbs. However, it requires development at a different scale that will be (initially) more expensive. And only if there is demand for it. ( )