Abstract
The idea of ‘creative cities’ has gained prominence amongst urban planners and
policymakers who often now find links between economic development and the ‘soft’
attributes of cities. While definitions of the ‘creative industries’ and the ‘creative class’
continue to be contested, many key urban policy actors continue to focus on developing
strategic programmes and policies to boost ‘creativity’ and economic growth. In this
article we review recent attempts to implement creative city ideas across five Australian
state capitals. Following the analysis of interview material derived from contact with
100 key community and policymaker actors, we first develop a typology of approaches to
creative city ideas: concerted action, engagement and strategic drift. We then move on
to consider how the idea of the creative city provides a simultaneously criticized yet
powerful organizing device that informs local strategies in relation to prosperity. Our
analysis highlights a series of connected consequences around four key issues:
(1) arts projects and gentrification; (2) housing affordability; (3) revanchist strands to public
space management; and (4) relative rates of social investment. We find that the rhetoric
of universal social potential accompanying creative city ideas continues to overlook
those unable to participate in this new economy, as well as those who are more actively
excluded.