In March 2004, the Hornery Institute hosted a forum to discuss the work of Professor Richard Florida, and specifically his recently released book "Rise of the Creative Class". Viewed in the context of its implications for the Australian business and social environment, the discussion drew upon a diverse panel of Australian opinion-leaders and decision-makers as well as Professor Florida himself.

Professor Florida's adopted area of expertise is a product of his time. Growing up in Pittsburgh, he witnessed first-hand the effects that the hollowing-out of industry can have on a community rooted in that industrial base. Later, in studying the forces that are influential in growing a local economy, he seems to draw upon this experience. His thesis is flavoured with equal measures of econometric analysis and humanist examination of how our organisational models leave us detached from our underlying human needs.

For mine this is the appeal in Professor Florida's work – it is multifaceted in its approach, and successfully draws together a number of concepts into a coherent model, with application across many aspects of the development and management of communities. For the most part, this forum's discussion was centred on innovation as a goal – a convenient currency with cache for both business and individuals – though the adopted theme could have just as easily been "people-friendly communities", "sustainable growth", or "re-invigorating regional centres".

The foundation of Florida's work is the necessary connection between businesses and the community in which it resides. Companies that depend on the knowledge and creativity of their staff (and arguably any on-going enterprise depends on these things to some degree) need to be able to access, recruit and retain such people. However, Florida dismisses as myth the idea that talented people move to where the "good" companies are; rather, companies are increasingly locating in places where they can readily access a pool of the "right" people.
This is a critical distinction for it challenges the conventions on how to grow a local economy – attracting some high-tech firms with tax-breaks and building a nice sports stadium is not enough.

Florida speaks of the "3 Ts" of economic development (each underpinned by Florida with regional indices derived from measures such as patents per capita, number of proponents of the Arts, etc.):

• Technology – the presence of institutions that are active in the development of new technologies, innovation, etc. (private sector, government initiatives, incubators, etc.), which facilitate the creative efforts of individuals, and the realisation of new ideas.
• Talent – a community rich in people with the necessary skills, education, and creativity to generate and develop novel ideas and technologies.
• Tolerance – the openness and diversity of a community, and the presence (indeed, encouragement) of a creatively active society which in turn generates its own "creative energy".
  Hence the centre-piece of Florida's thesis – his "creative capital theory":
  "regional economic development is powered by creative people who prefer places that are diverse, tolerant, and open to new ideas".

It is the latter point that separates Florida from the Human Capital theorists that preceded him. Essentially, Florida argues that just as one is less likely to be able to paint a masterpiece with a palette of one colour, so a creatively active community demands diversity. Moreover, the types of people who are most likely and able to contribute to this creative force are themselves attracted to communities where they see such creativity being tolerated and lauded – communities that do not fear difference and novelty.

It was to this point that Dr Ben Greene of Electro Optic Systems – in my opinion one of the stand out contributors to the panel discussion – emphasised the importance of community values in site selection for new facilities for his company. Greene spoke of deliberately considering the "vibe" or "energy" of a community in determining whether it would prove a suitable home for their high-tech operations. In Greene's words:
"We used to say that some places had the 'right feel', a certain 'je ne sais quoi', but we can't say that any more – Richard Florida has given us an index!"

Clearly there are implications for the social capital of the community also. If we accept that the ability to imagine and create lies at the heart of what it is to be human, then a society that fosters this facility must surely be a more people-friendly place. Discussions such as those around "work-life balance" are dealing with the symptoms of the "Organizational Age", and failing to address the detachment of organised work from our innate human desire to create, build and grow. As Florida puts it, why is that no-one talks about having "a lifestyle with work options?"

If the multidimensional nature of Florida's theory is one of its key strengths, then the weakness lying in the shadow of this strength is that his work is susceptible to being adopted piecemeal by parties with a particular agenda.

Florida goes to pains to emphasise that it is the combination of specific factors that facilitates economic development for a city / region. Yet it seems too easy for us to focus on the elements that challenge conventional thinking – the importance of diversity, the "gay index", the "bohemian index", etc. – and lose sight of the meaning in Florida's work. This was perhaps the case at the Sydney seminar where the audience discussion at the end of the forum became a grandstanding opportunity for the Arts lobby, the corporate women's lobby, and a clutch of marginal politicians wishing to publicly endorse these causes. I felt sorry for Professor Florida to the extent that he must have felt, after three hours of talking, that the audience had missed the point.

To the extent that Florida's work offers a greater voice to elements of our society (e.g. the Arts community) that might benefit from a more tangible link to economic prosperity of the total community, this may be a noble end in itself. However, in doing so we must not fail to recognise that Florida's research provides us with a model for a whole community – over-emphasis of one type of measure of one component of the model may be worse than dismissing the model completely.