Assignment Writing Service http://StudyHub.vip/Analyzing-The--Creative-City--Governanc

1. This article appeared in a journal published by Elsevier. The attached
copy is furnished to the author for internal non-commercial research
and education use, including for instruction at the authors institution
and sharing with colleagues.
Other uses, including reproduction and distribution, or selling or
licensing copies, or posting to personal, institutional or third party
websites are prohibited.
In most cases authors are permitted to post their version of the
article (e.g. in Word or Tex form) to their personal website or
institutional repository. Authors requiring further information
regarding Elsevier’s archiving and manuscript policies are
encouraged to visit:
http://www.elsevier.com/copyright

2. Author's personal copy
Analyzing the ‘‘creative city” governance: Relational processes
in Columbus, Ohio
Eleonora Redaelli
Division of Communication, University of Wisconsin – Stevens Point, Stevens Point, WI 54481, USA
a r t i c l e i n f o
Article history:
Received 3 September 2010
Received in revised form 22 February 2011
Accepted 16 May 2011
Available online 24 June 2011
Keywords:
Creative city
Governance
Arts and culture
Urban policy
Economic development
a b s t r a c t
Since the 1980s, the rhetoric of the ‘‘creative city” has been guiding the vision of cities around the world.
Several approaches have been used to study this topic, but little attention has been given to issues of gov-
ernance. This study aims to understand ‘‘creative city” governance relational processes. Specifically, it
provides a neo-institutional analysis of the newly forming governance in Columbus, Ohio, examining
17 documents released in the last decade, which study the arts, culture, and creativity of the city. What
emerges is that the actors involved in the process of building a ‘‘creative city” governance are from dif-
ferent sectors of civic society and they are getting together in the effort of assessing Columbus’ potential
of being a creative city.
Published by Elsevier Ltd.
Introduction
Cities all over the world are envisioning in ‘‘creativity”
their best strength or their needed objective. This urban
rhetoric started in the 1980s and was systematized in
Charles Landry’s book, The creative city: A toolkit for urban
innovators (2000), which provided guidelines to policymak-
ers for running urban life with imaginative action and plan-
ning cities creatively. In 2002, Florida’s book The rise of the
creative class fired debate around the world, making the to-
pic unavoidable when discussing urban issues and the va-
lue of the arts (Landry, 2006).
The ‘‘creative city” rhetoric created a movement among
city planners, consultants, research centers and scholars
in several fields. Several approaches have been adopted,
but little investigation has taken into consideration issues
of governance. The aim of this study is to understand ‘‘cre-
ative city” governance relational processes. Specifically, it
examines how the ‘‘creative city” rhetoric is unfolding in
Columbus, the capital of Ohio, and provides a neo-institu-
tional analysis of the newly forming governance, with a
specific focus on the actors involved and the common inter-
est they are mobilizing themselves for.
In Columbus the rhetoric of the ‘‘creative city” emerged
in 2001 in a document concerning economic development,
and by 2009, several reports were released. In 2001, Colum-
bus’ mayor, the President of The Ohio State University and
the chair of the Greater Columbus Chamber of Commerce,
jointly commissioned the study Regional economic strategy
for greater Columbus (Henton, 2001). This study made some
recommendations for economic development and sugges-
tions to advance science, transportation, and creative ser-
vices. In particular, it claimed that increasing the
importance of creativity as a driver of economic innovation
had implications for place-based economic development
strategies. By the beginning of 2008, the interest in tracking
the breadth and depth of Columbus’s cultural offerings was
a source of public debate in the local newspaper. The
Columbus Dispatch published the article Grim reality: Per-
ception is that city lacks in arts (Sheban, 2008), reporting
the findings of a study about economic development,
Benchmarking central Ohio (Columbus Partnership and
CRP, 2007), that ranked Columbus 14th for arts per capita
among 16 of the top metropolitan areas in the United
States.
This analysis of the documents released in the last dec-
ade shows how in the Ohio’s capital new coalitions are
forming ‘‘creative city” governance. Initially, developers
were approaching the arts because they saw their eco-
nomic potential, and the arts were getting involved with
developers because they could provide the know-how of
urban political mechanisms. However, the common inter-
1877-9166/$ - see front matter Published by Elsevier Ltd.
doi:10.1016/j.ccs.2011.05.001
E-mail address: eredaell@uwsp.edu
City, Culture and Society 2 (2011) 85–91
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
City, Culture and Society
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ccs

3. Author's personal copy
est was the need to assess the creative potential of Colum-
bus. The analysis here identifies definitional patterns of
what is included in this assessment, analyzing their con-
nections with the overall literature and interpreting how
these patterns relate to each other.
This article begins with a review of the ‘‘creative city”
movement, illustrating the variety of approaches used in
the literature from which emerges the lack of attention
about issues of governance, followed by a description of
the method used for the collection of data for the analysis.
Next, a neo-institutional analysis of 17 documents identi-
fies the actors involved and the key definitions used. The
conclusion summarizes what has been learned about
Columbus and highlights the relevance for other cities
and the academic literature.
The ‘‘creative city movement
For the last three decades, the designation of the ‘‘crea-
tive city” has been the leading rhetoric of cultural policies
around the world. Numerous reports show that cities are
either promoting themselves as creative or planning to
boost their creative potential. At the same time, many insti-
tutions are supporting cities in strengthening their creative
city vision: Vancouver’s Office of Cultural Affairs started
the Creative City Network of Canada in 1997; Partners for
Livable Community, based in Charlotte, North Carolina,
formed the Creative Cities Initiative in 2001; UNESCO
launched its Creative Cities Network in 2004; Osaka City
University set up a Japanese Creative Cities Network in
2005; the British Council joined with the Australian Council
for the Arts to present a forum, Making Creative Cities, in
2008; and finally, in 2009, the British Council established
the Creative Cities project involving the UK and 12 coun-
tries in East Asia.
The creative city movement is multilayered. Research
has used different approaches to claim the relevance of cre-
ativity for the city and each brings attention to a slightly
different element of urban life. The cultural planning ap-
proach emphasizes the need to think of urban planning as
a process that integrates different aspects of the city –
physical, economic, and social – that are elements consti-
tuting the ‘‘culture” of a place (Dreeszen, 1997; Evans,
2009; Ghilardi, 2001; Grogan & Mercer, 1995; Landry &
Bianchini, 1995; McNulty, 1991). Another way to bring cul-
ture to the center of urban planning conversation has been
to create cultural districts: art driven neighborhoods that
represent a recipe for successful urban renewal projects
(Brooks & Kushner, 2001; Frost-Kumpf, 1998; Galligan,
2008; King, 1992; Moon, 2001; Stern & Seifert, 2007).
One such extremely popular approach is the one proposed
by Richard Florida, who focused his theory on the idea of a
creative class (Florida, 2002a; Florida, 2002b; Florida,
2002c; Florida, 2005a; Florida, 2005b). With theterm ‘‘class”,
he refers to a group of professionals whose characteristics
are the creative skills that they use in their jobs. Florida’s
main argument is that if creative professionals move to a
place, then economic growth will follow. But, according to
this theory, a place also needs to posses talent, tolerance,
and technology in order to attract such professionals.
Another stream of literature focuses heavily on the econ-
omy as element of relevance for creativity. For instance,
Howkins (2002) described the creative economy as a way
of making money from new ideas, no matter what type of
business is involved. The cultural economy of cities has also
been studied as the connection between cultural production
and urban-industrial concentration. This economy-based
approach analyses the mechanisms of cultural production,
highlighting their potential for new sources of urban eco-
nomic growth in a post-fordist economy (Henriques & Thiel,
2000; Scott, 1997; Scott, 1999; Scott, 2000).
From an industrial perspective, attention is paid to cul-
tural and creative industries specifically as powerful
sources of economic wealth and mechanisms of innovation
(Caves, 2000; Hartley, 2005; Hesmondhalgh, 2002; Miège,
1987; Power, 2002; Power & Scott, 2004). The United King-
dom pioneered the study of creative industries, and the re-
port Mapping the Creative Industries (DCDCMS, 1998) was
the first attempt to systematically measure their contribu-
tion to the national economy. In the United States creative
industries have been studied to understand their economic
importance (AFAFTA, 2005) but also to understand their
spatial distribution in concentrated clusters (Scott, 2004).
The research approach that gave weight to the arts in eco-
nomic development circles came from reports about the
economic impact of the arts (AFTA, 2002; Cohen, Schaffer, &
Davidson, 2003), and studies pointing to the importance of
artistic occupations in the overall economy of a place
(Markusen & Schrock, 2006; Smith, Zabel, Osgood, & Glenn,
2007). The tie between the arts and economic development
has also been studied from other perspectives, demonstrat-
ing ambiguity but also openness to a variety of methods in
studying this topic (Currid, 2010).
What seems to be missing in the overall creative city
picture is an analysis that examines how the idea of crea-
tivity has forged processes of governance. Even though
Landry’s handbook (2000) suggests that creativity and
innovation are not exclusive domains of artists or technol-
ogy, but rather ways to improve political and social mech-
anisms, little empirical investigation has been done on
issues of governance in relation to creativity. Healey
(2004) argues that creativity and governance could be
intertwined phenomena in a double sense. In one sense,
creative modes of governance can mean new governance
capacity. In a second sense, governance dynamics can fos-
ter cultural and economic creativity. Despite the theoretical
strength of this idea, this perspective has not been taken
into consideration as analytical lens for studying specific
contexts. This paper addresses the gap using a neo-institu-
tional perspective infused with ideas from interpretive pol-
icy analysis (Fisher, 2003; Hall & Rosemary, 1996).
In the analysis of urban governance, a neo-institutional
approach shifts attention away from an account of formal
structures and procedures of government (Cars, p. xi). ‘Gov-
ernance’ is instead used as a general term to refer to a
group of actors gathering together to design action aimed
at public benefit (Cars, Patsy, Madanipour, & de Magalhaes,
2002). In particular, as developed in interpretive policy
analysis grounded on an interpretive and relational view
of social life, a neo-institutional approach to governance
aims to highlight relational processes among organizations
(Healey, Goran, Mandanipour, & De Magalhaes, 2002). This
type of analysis studies the interactions and the inter-
organizational negotiations, not the decisions or the goals
86 E. Redaelli / City, Culture and Society 2 (2011) 85–91

4. Author's personal copy
per se (Powell and Di Maggio, 1991). The focus is on the
relational process that displays the unfolding of inter-
organizational relations guided by a common interest. This
process is investigated identifying the diversity of the ac-
tors involved and studying the way they frame their com-
mon interest for collective action. Using this analytical
lens, the foregoing study of Columbus will attempt to
reconstruct the relational process of its creative city gover-
nance by addressing the following questions: Who are the
actors initiating this process? What is the common interest
they are mobilizing themselves for?
Method
Document analysis was the method chosen to collect
data for a neo-institutional analysis of Columbus. This
method is based on retrieving multiple documentary mate-
rials in order to collect information, track processes, and
make empirical observations (Johnson & Reynolds, 2005).
The documents chosen were 17 studies of the arts, culture,
and creativity in Columbus released in the last decade. The
starting point for the choice of the documents was the re-
port Brief summary of 12 major arts and culture related stud-
ies and projects in Columbus (Proctor Consulting, 2007), as it
was the only attempt to collect and organize all the studies
looking at arts, culture and creativity in Columbus pro-
duced up to 2007. Further research identified other studies
released after 2007 to present.
The analysis proceeded to determine who are the main
actors initiating this process and what is the common inter-
est they are mobilizing themselves for. The main actors
were identified looking at whomever commissioned the
documents exploring the creative potential of Columbus.
The common interest at the core of collective mobilization
was studied looking at the terminology used in these doc-
uments, trying to identify what the rhetoric of creative city
implies in the context of Columbus. Document analysis re-
lies a great deal on description in order to capture the
emergence of themes and patterns of social activities
(Altheide, 1996), therefore the following analysis articu-
lates the elements above describing how they emerged in
the 17 reports.
Identification of the actors
Among the commissioners of the documents analyzed,
the Columbus Partnership emerges as the leading actor in
advancing the mobilization for a creative city. The
Columbus Partnership is a business organization with a
broad agenda in local economic development that has
made arts and culture one of the foci of its vision. The group
was initiated in 2002 by 15 central Ohio business leaders,
and has since grown to 35 members. The Columbus
Partnership has been involved in several projects that in-
clude working with Franklin County to plan a new baseball
park, lobbying the Ohio Department of Transportation for a
better highway system, and bringing together an Ohio con-
gressional delegation in Washington to advocate for Ohio’s
priorities (Pramik, 2006). Porter’s report The competitive
advantage of regions (2004) provided the conceptual
framework for the Columbus Partnership’s actions that
have competitiveness as their goal. Porter provided even
more specific suggestions during a Columbus Partnership
retreat in his presentation Compete Columbus (2005). He
claimed that, in order to improve the economy, the city
should build on its four established business clusters: auto-
motive; advanced logistics; entertainment, arts and tour-
ism; and personalized medical services. Afterward, the
Columbus Partnership invested its energy in defining and
improving these four business clusters. In particular, they
put a lot of effort into defining the cluster of arts and cul-
ture to identify existing assets and possible ways of devel-
oping them; they also encouraged the creation of a network
for the flagship arts organizations, now known as the
Columbus Cultural Leadership Consortium.
Various other organizations are engaged in an active role
for the development of a creative city as a valued quality of
Columbus. The Columbus Cultural Leadership Consortium
is a coalition of the 16 largest nonprofit arts and cultural
institutions, formed in late 2005 at the encouragement of
the Columbus Partnership. This coalition has been per-
ceived by the local media as a way of empowering the arts
by giving them the opportunity to become a force of eco-
nomic development (Editorial, 2006). The Consortium’s
goals include using arts and culture to differentiate Colum-
bus in its competition for economic development, and
involving cultural leaders in regional planning (Mayr,
2006). Emerging from the invitation of the Columbus Part-
nership, the Consortium is an example of how the biggest
push toward the formation of a creative city governance
comes from developers who aim to use the arts for promot-
ing an economic development agenda. However, the Con-
sortium is also an example of how the arts are seeking a
place in the overall city governance in order to gain politi-
cal support and be considered as an area for city spending.
The Greater Columbus Arts Council (GCAC) is the other ma-
jor promoter of this latter goal for collective action.
GCAC is an independent nonprofit agency that adminis-
ters funds received from the city as established by contract,
and it has been active in developing a case for the value of
the arts for the city from different perspectives: market, so-
cial capital, and community. GCAC provides funding, lead-
ership and collaboration to the art community, and also
promotes events and provides educational services. Colum-
bus City Council set aside funds to be administered by
GCAC and distributed to nonprofit arts and arts related
organizations serving the citizens of Columbus. GCAC re-
ceives over $2 million in funds annually from the city and
distributes them to more than 70 organizations.
In 2006, the city council also got involved in the effort of
exploring the creative potential of Columbus by commis-
sioning the report Widening the focus: Meeting the challenges
of changing times for arts, cultural and creative industries
(Wyszomirski, 2006), and by creating a task force for the
preparation of a cultural plan presented to the community
in late March of 2007 titled The Creative economy: Leverag-
ing the arts, culture and creative community for a stronger
Columbus (Creative Columbus Policy Steering Committee,
2007). Finally, the last study released in 2009 by the
Columbus College of Art and Design (CCAD), Creative
Columbus. A picture of the creative economy of central Ohio
(CRP, 2009), adds a higher education institution to the
actors forming the creative city governance. Interestingly,
CCAD is also one of the members of the Columbus Partner-
E. Redaelli / City, Culture and Society 2 (2011) 85–91 87

5. Author's personal copy
ship, which confirms its leading role in these relational
processes.
Overall, considering the commissioners of the docu-
ments analyzed here, what emerges is that the process to-
ward a creative city governance of Columbus is bringing
together a business organization (the Columbus Partner-
ship which has a strong leading role), the local arts agency
(the GCAC), several arts organizations (that formed the
Columbus Cultural Leadership Consortium), the city coun-
cil (that created a task force), and a higher education insti-
tution (the CCAD). This is an interesting mix of civic actors
that future research could analyze in more depth to find
out what power relations and political interests they repre-
sent (Stevenson, 2003). The following section will analyze
what is their common interest for mobilization.
From arts and culture to creativity
All the documents analyzed show that the actors in-
volved in the process of building a creative city governance
are mobilizing a collective action in the effort to assess
Columbus’ potential of being a creative city. The literature
of the creative city movement does not demonstrate agree-
ment on a standard model of what to include in a creative
city assessment, reflected by the use of inconsistent termi-
nology. The terms culture, arts, and creativity are included
sometimes in contrast, and sometimes interchangeably.
Some efforts have been undertaken to clarify the pattern
of use and what is included in each definition, and recent
work has highlighted how the use of different terms under-
lines different political paradigms (Peck, 2011). In the
Columbus documents, two main definitions emerge: one
narrow, perpetuating an old-style paradigm; the other
one broad, attempting to blur the boundaries between high
arts and popular culture. Table 1 groups the documents
analyzed under these two main definitions. The two defini-
tions do not present a sequential development. However,
the increased connection among the different actors is
leading to a definitional consensus.
Arts and culture
The first definition is narrow, old-style and linked to the
nonprofit subsidy model. Cherbo and Wyszomirski (2000)
describe this model of American cultural policy as the pub-
lic leveraging paradigm, an idea linked to the creation of
the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA), which claimed
the need for public support for the arts, as they could not be
sustained by the market. As time passed cultural policy be-
gan to enlarge the definition of arts, expanding it beyond
the nonprofit sector and the so-called ‘‘high arts”. However,
the old definition is still present, as the following Columbus
documents demonstrates.
Building creative capital (Benefactors Counsel, LLC, 2005)
studied the financial resources available to nonprofit arts
organizations. ‘‘We defined the search criteria for organiza-
tions generally considered ‘‘arts” or ‘‘culture” eliminating
zoos, nature centers, colleges of art, and other entities that
might artificially inflate the statistics” (p. 9). Nonprofit arts
organizations were also the focus of the 2006 Market
research (AMS Planning & Research Corp., 2007) and Arts
and economic prosperity III (AFTA, 2007).
In Supporting art. Advancing culture (GCAC, 2007), 2012
Bicentennial (City of Columbus, 2007) and Attracting and
retaining talent to Columbus (Next Generation Consulting,
2007) the definition was not even spelled out, and what
to include appears to be taken for granted. However, the re-
port Artspace preliminary feasibility report (Artspace Projects
& Inc., 2007) focuses on live/work spaces for visual artists
and that could bring a healthy element to the inner city
environment.
Finally, the United cultural fund (AMS Planning & Re-
search Corp., 2005) was a feasibility study that investi-
gated the needs and opportunities to create a United
Arts Fund1
in Columbus and analyzed the financial situa-
tion of 17 major nonprofit arts organizations. After the
study, this group of organizations created the Columbus
Cultural Leadership Consortium and prepared the Thrive
in five report (Columbus Cultural Leadership Consortium,
2007) that articulated a large fundraising campaign to
raise $12 million in 5 years, and attracted local media cov-
erage (Gilson, 2007).
Creativity
The second definition widens the focus beyond just non-
profit organizations and blurs the line between high arts
organizations and other cultural activities. Cultural policy
research has developed several attempts to create a classi-
fication of the overall cultural sector. In 1999, an entire is-
sue of the International Journal of Arts, Law and Society was
dedicated to studies suggesting ways to consider the sector
in a comprehensive way. However, the field has not
reached an agreement yet (Cherbo, Stewart, & Wyszomir-
ski, 2008). The report Arts and culture (Clark & Robinson,
2004) represents the first attempt at an inclusive definition.
Besides nonprofit arts organizations, the study includes
also COSI – Center of science and industry, The Franklin
Park Conservatory and the Columbus Zoo and Aquarium
which are all organizations whose purpose would not make
them eligible to be included in the narrow, old-style
definition.
The report presented by the Columbus Cultural Leader-
ship Consortium emphasized even more the mix of arts
and culture organizations, showing the breadth of the cre-
ative sector. Arts and culture in Columbus: Creating compet-
itive advantage and community benefit (Columbus Cultural
Leadership Consortium, 2006), was prepared through the
creation of forums for discussion about art and culture,
without imposing any specific definition, but rather
encouraging cross-fertilization. ‘‘Perceived as an equilateral
triangle, all aspects of the arts and culture inform one an-
other and add to diversity, with no individual side or angle
being greater than the other” (2006, p. 9). The three sides of
the equilateral triangle were: traditional culture (nonprofit
arts and cultural organizations), popular culture (for-profit
arts and culture), and independent culture (individual ar-
tists and small arts and culture organizations). The report
1
United Arts Funds (UAF) are community-specific fundraising organizations. After
collecting money in the community, they distribute the funds to the arts organiza-
tions. The UAF movement began in 1949, when civic leaders in Cincinnati, OH, and
Louisville, KY, determined that community-wide campaigns could raise more money
to provide operating support to their major arts institutions. Since then, more than
100 communities across the country have established UAFs (AFTA, 2009).
88 E. Redaelli / City, Culture and Society 2 (2011) 85–91

6. Author's personal copy
Benchmarking central Ohio (Columbus Partnership, 2007)
also included a broad array of arts establishments, focusing
on their role as a measure of community well-being.
Widening the focus: Meeting the challenges of changing
times for arts, cultural and creative industries (Wyszomirski,
2006), a report prepared for Columbus city council, set the
stage for an understanding of arts and culture in Columbus
in a way that not only broadens the traditional conception,
but also introduces the term ‘‘creative”. Wyszomirski states
‘‘the creative sector includes individual artists as well as
small arts-based businesses, nonprofit arts organizations of
all sizes and in all fields, commercial arts and entertainment
businesses, campus-based arts training, presentation and
production programs” (Wyszomirski, 2006, p. 7). This defini-
tion aligns Columbus with the shift in the conception of the
arts and culture heralded by two national reports in 1997:
Creative America (1997) issued by the President’s Committee
on the Arts and Humanities, and The arts and the public pur-
pose (1997), released by The American Assembly.
In 2007, the Creative Columbus Policy Steering Commit-
tee created by the city council, prepared The creative econ-
omy: Leveraging arts, culture and creative community,
drawing from Wyszomirski’s ideas. The report presents a
definition of creative economy which includes creative
support systems, creative scenes, creative clusters, and cre-
ative experiences. It also highlights the problematic nature
of this broad definition due to the lack of data. ‘‘The full
depth and range of arts and culture assets in Columbus is
underestimated in current data because there is no single
source that includes nonprofit, for-profit, entertainment,
and community-based arts and culture” (p. 15). The policy
goal of the creative economy report was to cultivate a crea-
tive profile for Columbus that would emphasize the mix of
organizations and activities that make up the creative
economy.
Finally, the Columbus College of Art and Design (CCAD)
led the last effort to assess the creativity of the city in its
report titled Creative Columbus. A picture of the creative
economy of central Ohio (CRP, 2009). This report is data-dri-
ven and contains information about occupations and indus-
tries, using classifications from the Standard Occupation
Codes (SOC) and the North American Industry Classification
System 2002 (NAICS). The range of activities included is
very broad: built environment firms, institutions such as
libraries and museums, marketing, media, performing arts,
product design, and visual arts.
The CCAD report provides a definition that builds upon
all the previous ones. In all the documents produced for
Columbus this is the first one that cites previous reports.
It even uses the theoretical framework proposed in the city
Table 1
Columbus Documents.
Title Date Who/Commissioners For What/Definitions
Narrow Definition
Building creative capital 2005 Greater Columbus Arts Council Arts and culture organizations-not specified
United cultural fund 2005 The Columbus Partnership 17 Nonprofit arts organizations
Compete Columbus 2005 The Columbus Partnership Tourism, entertainment and the arts
Thrive in five 2007 Columbus Cultural Leadership
Consortium
16 Nonprofit arts organizations
2006 Market research effort 2007 Greater Columbus Arts Council 18 Nonprofit arts organizations
Arts and economic prosperity III 2007 Americans for the Arts 47 Nonprofit arts organizations
Supporting art. Advancing culture 2007 Greater Columbus Arts Council Not spelled out
2012 Bicentennial 2007 Mayor and City Council Not spelled out
Attracting and retaining talent to
Columbus
2007 – Columbus Chamber of Commerce
– Mayor Coleman
– The City of Columbus
– Chase Bank
– Experience Columbus
– Greater Columbus Arts Council
Not spelled out
Artspace preliminary feasibility report 2007 Greater Columbus Arts Council Visual artists
Broad Definition
Regional economic strategies for
greater Columbus
2001 Columbus’ Mayor President The Ohio
State University
Creative services
Arts and culture 2004 The Columbus Partnership – Nonprofit arts organizations
– COSI: Center of science and industry
– Franklin Park Conservatory
– Zoo
Widening the focus: Meeting the
challenges of changing times for
arts, cultural and creative industries
2006 City Council Arts and creative ecology
Individual artists, small arts-based businesses, nonprofit organizations
of all sizes, commercial arts, entertainment business, campus-based
training, programs
Arts and culture in Columbus. Creating
competitive advantage and
community benefit
2006 Columbus Cultural Leadership
Consortium
– Traditional culture
– Independent culture
– Popular culture
The creative economy: Leveraging the
arts, culture and creative
community for a stronger Columbus
2007 City Council Creative ecology
Creative support systems, creative scenes, the creative cluster, creative
experiences
Benchmarking central Ohio 2007 – The Columbus Partnership
– Community Research Partners
Arts establishments, theatres, dinner theatres, dance companies, musi-
cal groups, artists, performing arts companies, motion picture theatres,
museums, historical sites, zoos, botanical gardens, park, arts school,
ancillary art participation venues
Creative Columbus. A picture of the
creative economy of central Ohio
2009 Columbus College of Arts and Design The creative cluster
Built environment firms, libraries, museums, marketing, media, per-
forming arts, product design, visual arts
E. Redaelli / City, Culture and Society 2 (2011) 85–91 89

7. Author's personal copy
council report that defines the creative economy as includ-
ing infrastructure, places, activities, and assets. This use of
previous reports’ ideas shows engagement with the overall
creative city rhetoric, illustrates that the topic is reaching a
city-wide discussion, and demonstrates that the different
actors are acknowledging each other. Moreover, it shows
that over time the actors engaged in this relational process
are reconciling different conceptions of what to include
when assessing Columbus’ creative assets.
Conclusions
Looking at 17 reports released during the past decade,
this article traced the relational processes forming a crea-
tive city governance in Columbus. The mobilization effort
consisted of building the network and framing the issue.
Overall, Columbus’ interest in creativity emerged as a mid-
dle ground between developers trying to find a new para-
digm for economic development in the post-fordist era
and the arts trying to get their issues onto the local agenda.
Later, the city council and a higher education institution
also became involved, enlarging the civic participation of
the governance group.
The actors’ common interest has been the need to assess
Columbus’ creative potential as they all consider creativity
a valued place quality. In the beginning, two main defini-
tions emerged of what to include in this assessment, and
the terms arts, culture and creativity were all involved.
However, over time the documents showed a convergence
of ideas. In fact, the most recent report, Creative Columbus,
merged previous definitions including more than the tradi-
tional nonprofit arts organization. More over, this report
started the process of collecting data in order to show more
effectively the breadth of the creative sector.
The Columbus example also leads to more general con-
siderations for the creative city rhetoric and its impact on
governance. First, it shows how the vision of a creative city
can bring together an interesting mix of civic actors: busi-
ness organizations, higher education institutions, arts orga-
nizations and the city council. In Columbus this way of
developing governance seems to have fostered synergy,
developed links in social relations and overcome a frag-
mented collective action. Moreover, this new network has
meant the mobilization of power and resources from differ-
ent parts of the city governance landscape.
Second, the Columbus example reveals that new group
exchanges can develop governance capacity. The Columbus
Partnership has used its know-how to help the flagship arts
organizations get organized in order to be able to advocate
together. In the United States, for a long time the arts con-
stituted a fragmented policy community, whose energies
were dispersed (Wyszomirski, 2000). Now in Columbus,
thanks to the support of a business organization, arts orga-
nizations have started to work together in order to gain
political clout.
Finally, the definition used in the most recent report to
assess the creative assets provides an interesting model
for the overall rhetoric of a creative city. The shift from
using the term arts and culture to using the term creativity
implies a broadening of what to consider when assessing
the creative assets of a place, reconciling the different con-
ceptions of the actors engaged and demonstrating the
breadth of the creative assets in a city. This inclusive defi-
nition is a useful model for any city engaged in assessing
its creativity.
Acknowledgements
The author wishes to thank Cynthia Clingan, Liz Fakazis,
Brian Hracs and three anonymous reviewers for their com-
ments on previous versions of the manuscript.
References
AFTA (2002). Arts and economic prosperity: The economic impact of nonprofit arts
organizations and their audiences. Washington, DC: American for the Arts.
AFTA (2005). Creative industries 2005. Washington, DC: Americans for the Arts.
AFTA (2007). Arts and economic prosperity III. The economic impact of nonprofit
organizations and their audience in greater Columbus, OH. Washington, DC:
Americans for the Arts.
AFTA (2009). United Arts Funds. Retrieved 08/28/10, from http://www.artsusa.org/
information_services/arts_business_partnerships/united_arts_funds/default.
asp.
Altheide, D. (1996). Qualitative media analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications, Inc.
AMS Planning & Research Corp. (2005). United cultural fund. Petaluma, CA: AMS
Planning & Research Corp.
AMS Planning & Research Corp. (2007). 2006 Market research effort. Petaluma, CA:
AMS Planning & Research Corp.
Artspace Projects, Inc. (2007). Artspace preliminary feasibility report. Minneapolis,
MN: Artspace Projects, Inc.
American Assembly (1997). The arts and the public purpose: Final report of the ninety-
second American Assembly. New York, NY: The American Assembly.
Benefactors Counsel, LLC (2005). Building creative capital. Columbus, OH:
Benefactors Counsel, LLC.
Brooks, A., & Kushner, R. (2001). Cultural districts and urban development.
International Journal of Arts Management, 3(2), 4–14.
Cars, G. H., Patsy Madanipour, Ali, & de Magalhaes, Claudio (Eds.). (2002). Urban
governance, insitutional capacity and social milieux. Aldersho, UK: Ashgate.
Caves, R. (2000). Creative industries. Contracts between art and commerce. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
Cherbo, J. M., Stewart, R. A., & Wyszomirski, M. J. (2008). Understanding the arts and
the creative sector in the United States. Piscataway, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Cherbo, J. M., & Wyszomirski, M. J. (2000). Mapping the public life of the arts in
America. In J. M. Cherbo & M. J. Wyszomirski (Eds.), The public life of the arts in
America (pp. 3–21). New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
City of Columbus (2007). 2012 Bicentennial. Columbus, OH: City of Columbus.
Clark, S., & Robinson, A. (2004). Arts and culture. A report for the columbus
partnership. Columbus, OH: The Columbus Partnership.
Cohen, R., Schaffer, W., & Davidson, B. (2003). Arts and economic prosperity: The
economic impact of nonprofit arts organizations and their audiences. The
Journal of Arts Management, Law, and Society, 33(1), 23–45.
Columbus Cultural Leadership Consortium (2006). Arts and culture in Columbus.
Creating competitive advantage and community benefit. Columbus, OH: Columbus
Cultural Leadership Consortium.
Columbus Cultural Leadership Consortium (2007). Thrive in five. Columbus, OH:
Columbus Cultural Leadership Consortium.
Columbus Partnership and CRP (2007). Benchmarking central Ohio. Columbus, OH:
The Columbus Partnership.
CRP (2009). Creative Columbus. A picture of the creative economy of central Ohio.
Columbus, OH: Community Research Partners.
Creative Columbus Policy Steering Committee (2007). The creative economy.
Leveraging the arts, culture and creative community for a stronger Columbus.
Columbus, OH: City of Columbus.
Currid, E. (2010). Symposium introduction-art and economic development: New
directions for the growth of cities and regions. Journal of Planning Education and
Research, 29(3), 257–261.
DCMS (1998). Creative industries mapping document. London, UK: Department for
Culture, Media and Sport.
Dreeszen, C. (1997). Community cultural planning handbook: A guide for community
leaders. Washington, DC: American for the Arts.
Editorial (2006). Powering the arts: Columbus cultural leadership consortium can make
the arts work for city success. The Columbus Dispatch (p.04D).
Evans, G. (2009). Creative cities, creative spaces and urban policy. Urban Studies,
46(5), 1003–1040.
Fisher, F. (2003). Reframing public policy: Discoursive politics and deliberative
practices. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Florida, R. (2002a). Bohemia and economic geography. Journal of Economic
Geography, 2, 55–71.
Florida, R. (2002b). People, place, and region: The economic geography of talent.
Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 92, 743–755.
Florida, R. (2002c). The rise of the creative class: And how it’s transforming work,
leisure, community and everyday life. New York, NY: Basic Books.
90 E. Redaelli / City, Culture and Society 2 (2011) 85–91

8. Author's personal copy
Florida, R. (2005a). Cities and the creative class. New York, NY: Routledge.
Florida, R. (2005b). The Flight of the creative class. New York, NY: HarperBusiness.
Frost-Kumpf, H. A. (1998). Cultural districts. The arts as a strategy for revitalizing our
cities. Washington, DC: Americans for the Arts.
Galligan, A. M. (2008). The evolution of arts and cultural districts. In J. M. Cherbo, R.
A. Stewart, & M. J. Wyszomirski (Eds.), Understanding the arts and the creative
sector in the United States (pp. 129–142). Piscataway, NJ: Rutgers University
Press.
GCAC (2007). Supporting art. Advancing culture. Strategic plan 2007. Columbus, OH:
Greater Columbus Arts Council.
Ghilardi, L. (2001). Cultural planning and cultural diversity. In T. Bennett (Ed.),
Differing diversities. Cultural policy and cultural diversity (pp. 123–134).
Strasbourg: Council of Europe Publishing.
Gilson, N. (2007). Millions sought for the arts. The Columbus Dispatch (p. 01A).
Grogan, D., & Mercer, C. (1995). The cultural planning handbook. St. Leonards, NWS;
Australia: Allen & Unwin.
Hall, P. T., & Rosemary (1996). Political science an the three institutionalism.
Political Studies, XLIV(5), 936–957.
Hartley, J. (2005). Creative industries. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
Healey, P. (2004). Creativity and urban governance. Policy Studies, 25(2),
87–102.
Healey, P., Goran, C., Mandanipour, A., & De Magalhaes, C. (2002). Transforming
governance, institutionalist analysis and institutional capacity. In G. H. Cars,
Patsy, Ali Madanipour, & Claudio de Magalhaes (Eds.), Urban governance,
institutional capacity and social milieux (pp. 6–28). Aldersho, UK: Ashgate.
Henriques, E. B., & Thiel, J. (2000). The cultural economy of cities. European Urban
and Regional Studies, 7(3), 253–268.
Henton, D. (2001). Regional economic strategy for greater Columbus. Discussion draft.
Mountain View, CA: Collaborative Economics.
Hesmondhalgh, D. (2002). The cultural industries. London: Sage.
Howkins, J. (2002). The creative economy: How people make money from ideas.
Penguin Global.
Johnson, J. B., & Reynolds, H. T. (2005). Political science research methods.
Washington, DC: CQ Press.
King, J. L. (1992). Integrating cultural districts into the fabric of the urban landscape.
Unpublished Dissertation/Thesis, the University of Texas at Arlington, United
States.
Landry, C. (2000). The Creative city: A toolkit for urban innovators. London: Earthscan
Publications.
Landry, C. (2006). Lineages of the creative city. Research Journal for Creative Cities,
1(1), 15–23.
Landry, C., & Bianchini, F. (1995). The creative city. London: Demos.
Markusen, A., & Schrock, G. (2006). The artistic dividend: Urban artistic
specialisation and economic development implications. Urban Studies, 43(10),
1661–1686.
Mayr, B. (2006). Groups ask city to include them in planning. The Columbus Dispatch
(p. 04B).
McNulty, R. (1991). Cultural planning: A movement for civic progress. Paper presented
at the Cultural Planning Conference. Mornington, Australia; EIT.
Miège, B. (1987). The logics at work in the new cultural industries. Media Culture
and Society, 9(3), 273–289.
Moon, M. J. (2001). Cultural governance. A comparative study of three cultural
districts. Administration and Society, 33(4), 432.
Next Generation Consulting. (2007). Attracting and retaining talent to Columbus.
Madison, WI: Next Generation Consulting.
Peck, J. (2001). Creative moments: Working culture. . .through municipal socialism
and neoliberal urbanism. In E. W. McKann, K. (Ed.), Mobil urbanism: cities and
policymaking in the global age. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Porter, M. (2004) The Competitive Advantage of Regions. Retrieved 01/15/2008,
from http://www.scribd.com/doc/30328822/The-Competitive-Advantage-of-
Regions-Michael-E-Porter.
Power, D. (2002). ‘‘Cultural Industries” in Sweden: An assessment of their place in
the Swedish economy. Economic Geography, 78(2), 103–127.
Porter, M. (2005). Compete Columbus. Cambridge, MA: Monitor Company Group, L.P.
Powell, W., & DiMaggio, P. (1991). The new institutionalism in organizational analysis.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Power, D., & Scott, A. J. (2004). Cultural industries and the production of culture.
London; New York: Routledge.
Pramik, M. (2006). Columbus partnership has goals in its sights. The Columbus
Dispatch (p. 01F).
President’s Committee on the Arts, Humanities (1997). Creative America. A report to
the president. Washington, DC: President’s Committee on the Arts and
Humanities.
Proctor Consulting (2007). Brief summaries of twelve major arts and culture related
studies and projects in Columbus. Columbus, OH: Proctor Consulting.
Scott, A. J. (1997). The cultural economy of cities. International Journal of Urban and
Regional Research, 21(2), 323–339.
Scott, A. J. (1999). The cultural economy: Geography and the creative field. Media,
Culture and Society, 21, 807–817.
Scott, A. J. (2000). The cultural economy of cities: Essays on the geography of image-
producting industries. London: Sage.
Scott, A. J. (2004). Cultural-products industries and urban economic development.
Urban Affairs Review, 39(4), 461–490.
Sheban, J. (2008). Grim reality: Perception is that city lacks in arts . The Columbus
Dispatch, (p. 01A).
Smith, S., Zabel, L., Osgood, C., & Glenn, D. (2007). Artists count. San Paul, MN:
Minnesota citizens for the arts.
Stern, M., & Seifert, S. (2007). Cultivating ‘‘Natural” cultural districts. PA: Philadelphia.
Stevenson, D. (2003). Cities and urban culture. Maidenhead; Philadelphia: Open
University Press.
Wyszomirski, M. J. (2000). Policy communities and policy influence. Securing a
government role in cultural policy for the twenty-first century. In G. G.
Bradford, Michael, Wallach, & Glenn (Eds.), The Politics of Culture. Policy
Perspectives for Individuals, Institutions, and Communities (pp. 94–107). New
York, NY: The New Press New York.
Wyszomirski, M. J. (2006). Widening the focus: Meeting the challenges of changing
times for arts, cultural and creative industries. Report prepared for Columbus City
Council, Columbus, OH.
Eleonora Redaelli is Assistant Professor and Coordinator of the Arts Management
Program at University of Wisconsin – Stevens Point (UWSP). After working in the
cultural sector in Italy, she moved to the United States, where she earned her PhD
from The Ohio State University.
E. Redaelli / City, Culture and Society 2 (2011) 85–91 91