Download CREATIVITY AS A SYNECDOCHE OF THE CITY – MARKETING

Conference on
CREATIVITY AS A SYNECDOCHE OF THE CITY – MARKETING THE CREATIVE BERLIN
When
Creative Industries
Crossover with
Cities
創意產業與城市發展研討會
Ares KALANDIDES1 and Bastian LANGE2
1 National Technical University of Athens, Greece/ InPolis, Berlin
2 Leibniz-Institute for Regional Geography Leipzig / Georg-Simmel Centre for Metropolitan Research, Berlin
Abstract
In this paper we will take a close look at the field of creative industries in Berlin. Referring to examples of design production,
we will highlight the economic mode of this newly emerged
segment and try to answer the following questions: How is
this specific market constituted by young creative entrepreneurs? How do economic development and place marketing
practices by public-private institutions propel urban dynamics? What is Berlin’s specificity between stimulation of creative
economies and place marketing on the one hand and the milieu-specific economic modes of making an entrepreneurial
living on the other? The paper presents systematic paradoxes
that are inscribed in place marketing strategies of Berlin’s creative potential. It provides first steps in better understanding
the complex process of place production in the field of creative
industries by discussing the model of urbanity that is represented through them.
Key Words: Berlin, City Marketing, Governance, Creative Industries
1. Creativity and the city. Preliminaries.
Talking about the city as the privileged field of creativity
almost seems redundant, when creativity is often seen as a
major if not the decisive force of the human (Hall and Pfeiffer,
2000) and would thus appear in every human action. Still, it is
worth looking closer at the relations between the two and the
way they are mutually constituted. Apart from celebrating the
creative city as a wonderland, a critical perspective is applied
in the following in order to deconstruct major narratives of
hand-knitted, quickly made causalities between them.
The international (s. anglophone) discussion in the past few
years has been dominated by a delirious, imaginative, and self
projected representation of the so-called creative city (Florida,
2002, Florida, 2005, Helbrecht, 1998, Hospers, 2003, Landry,
1996, Scott, 2006). Almost unquestioned, it is supposed to be
the solution to all urban problems: economic stagnancy, urban shrinkage, social segregation, technological aging, global
competition or more. New efforts by public-private alliances,
real estate managers, but also urban professionals focus on
place marketing and therefore often tend to work toward
establishing the creative city as a future reference model for
urban development (Rainisto, 2003, Jessop, 1998, Drake,
2003). In the framework of the so-called creative city concepts
place-making strategies refer to it to address community
building and neighbourhood integration issues at the same
time (Awotona, 1997, Fürst et al., 2004). Contextualizing the
production and formulation of place beyond its geographical
fixation within the debate on a so-called creative city, only few
systematic and critical approaches can be named: (Jessop,
1998, (Binder, 2001, Binder, 2004), (Helbrecht, 1998, Helbrecht,
2004). Critical diagnosis of the societal use of “creativity” and
its representatives has been presented by Bröckling, Osten
and Peck (Bröckling, 2004); (Osten, 2003); (Peck, 2005).
Nevertheless recent concepts on space as the determinate
for understanding creative industries and its agents raise the
following questions: What is the interconnection between
creativity and (urban) space and how are they mutually constituted? How do newly established markets in the field of
creative industries operate and how do young entrepreneurs
access those informal, ephemeral, and often milieu-specific
markets? On the other hand how does public administration
concentrate and market the creativity of the place worldwide,
when it is the fragmented product of numerous young startup self-employed entrepreneurs?
122
In the first part of this paper we are going to set the conceptual
framework in which we understand creative industries, before
looking at Berlin in the next section. Understanding Berlin as
the site, the imagination and the action field for new professional practices, we shall look into the following: What kind of
economic and governance models are put together by young
entrepreneurs, entrepreneurial network-based platforms
and informal coalitions as well as by marketing departments
of public administration, in order to position themselves as
representatives of the place/brand Berlin? Based on three
empirical case studies in the following section, the notions
of place-making and place marketing by newly established
informal as well as formal agents will be highlighted from a
non-essentialist perspective. This agent perspective will demonstrate Berlin’s specific economic mode but also creative industry in general as an autonomous field of action with all its
paradoxes: a self-determinate, autonomous work style within
a flexible, unstable, insecure situation, also known as the ‘new
precariousness’. The discussion seeks to explore the ways
in which hip, trendy and often highly educated, but socioeconomically deprived players, are marketed and exploited
because of their creative potential.
Finally we will seek to examine how self-governance practices
of new entrepreneurial agents in the fields of creative industries can be systematically connected to place marketing.
Referring to examples of design production, we will highlight
the economic mode of this newly emerged segment and try
to explore the following questions: How is this specific market
constituted by young creative entrepreneurs and how do
marketing and place-marketing practices by public-private
institutions even propel urban – often uneven – dynamics?
What does Berlin’s specificity between stimulation of creative
economies and place marketing on the one hand and milieu
specific economic modes of making an entrepreneurial living
on the other tell us about the constitution of cities nowadays?
Just as a synecdoche is a figure of speech where a part substitutes for a whole, the same way representations of creativity
put it in the position of the urban. The paper presents systematic paradoxes that are inscribed in place marketing strategies
of the creative potential and discusses what kind of urban
model is represented through them. We will discuss how the
highly selective and reductionist process of marketing creative
places relates to the fragmented, disperse, and quickly changing practices of new agents in Berlin’s creative industries.
2. Conceptualizing “Action and Space” in creative
industries
2.1. Concepts of place-making and spacing
A specifically geographical reading of the emergence of a
flexible workforce in Creative Industries as a result of socioeconomic transformation processes, has to bring the spatial
dimension to the fore and address it explicitly. Within the
framework of a theoretically formulated socio-geographically
based “cultural turn”, cultural codes, meanings of spaces and
processes of evaluations or devaluations have been shifted to
central hinges of recent socio-spatial analysis (Cook et al., 2000
for an overview), (Philo, 2000, 27). Within this perspective, the
focus of spatial analysis has shifted towards a relational understanding of cultural codes and persistent physical spaces, materialised spatial constructions and culturally coded identities.
Central to our understanding of space and place is the seminal
work of Doreen Massey. First of all we see place as constituted
through human relations and practices, actions repeated in
daily routines or habitualized in everyday life. These everyday
spaces of action, e.g. do not take place in a fixed and predetermined empty “container” waiting to be filled, but are being
produced and contested constantly. Secondly, and this goes
far beyond the first point, place in its turn influences the social
forces that have created it. It is not just a passive product, but
becomes a constitutive agent of new social relations. Thirdly
we see place as “relative and relational” (Massey, 2005, Massey,
1994) rather than as a “bounded” location. It is constituted
through interconnections with rather than through opposition to other places. Finally, place is not seen as stasis, but as
the point of negotiation and mutual constitution of space and
time. All of the above leads to an understanding of place as
the nodal point of interrelations through space/time. This by
no means obliterates power relations as a constitutive element of this interrelatedness, but on the contrary enables us
to examine them.
Based on the conceptual framework of Doreen Massey, German urban sociologist Löw (Löw, 2001) developed new theoretical tools that can be further applied to the empiric analysis
of the diverse social formations of new agents and their
place-making strategies in an urban system such as Berlin.
Here, space is to be understood as the result of an act of synthesis based on the specific strategies and tactics of individual
protagonists. The term spacing describes the active process
by which an individual relationally orders social goods and
bodies (Löw, 2001, 158). Based on this understanding, space
constitutes itself as a process through synthesis of these so123
Conference on
cial goods and bodies, by means of perception, memory, and
feeling. In the post-industrial city, individual differentiation
strategies are symbolically and culturally formulated. The socio-spatial structure expresses itself ever more strongly in local
politics through which the individuals not only create a symbolic difference, but also attempt to arouse attention through
positioning tactics anchored in the location. Focussing on the
applied practices and action patterns in the field of creative
industries, milieu and profession-specific governance models
can be highlighted. Seeing the spatial dimension as a conceptual background for understand urban practices by different
agents around the action field creative industries, we can deconstruct the way urban space is negotiated, coded, divided,
and communicated, according to professional demands, administrative logics, as well as milieu-specific demands.
2.2. New governance modes in Creative Industries.
Paradoxes, constraints, and divergent patterns
2.2.1 Governance and its paradox
One way of understanding governance is as collective action
by private, public, and corporate agents regarding public
goods, spatially relevant resources, cultural values and action
resources (Healey, 2006, Heinelt, 2004). In general what is
meant by the use of the word is a mode of decision-making
which does not only follow top-down patterns, but that includes these as well as horizontal or bottom-up processes. The
groups of players (decision-makers) are usually represented
by a triangular scheme, with state, economy and civil society
on its three points.
We will use the concept in order to examine the forms of collective action, the spatial positioning, institutional set-up and
self-understanding within emerging economies. Therefore,
we will be able to look closer at socio-spatial power relations
that are not equally given, but negotiated and debated by
different actors, interconnected through hegemonic relations
that create up/down or inside/outside dichotomies. These
relations are constantly questioned, contested and renegotiated – in a rather more antagonistic way that the consensus of
governance suggests. What should be kept in mind here once
again, is the understanding of spatial relations as relations
of power (with subsequent inequalities) and the constant
re-drawing of ‘maps of power’ or ‘power geometries’ (Massey
1999).
124
Applying this theoretical framework in the field of what we
call creative industries, governance strategies are mainly seen
as new negotiation-based (or not) approaches by various
agents in city regions. At the same time they are often critically
discussed because of their lack of creativity, but also because,
being new, they lack experience and proof (Balducci, 2004),
(Kunzmann, 2004). Less obvious milieu-specific modes of organisation in the field of emerging creative industries might
present fresh perspectives on newly invented self-steering and
self-promoting practices applied by new professional agents.
Who could these new professional agents be? The emergence
of new economic field in Berlin after the unification – as well
as in other European metropolitan regions – is accompanied
by new entrepreneurial agents in the field of creative and culture production (Lange, 2005b, Lange, 2005a). In the context
of Berlins economic stagnation, its failed growth expectation
and fiscal collapse, new cultural entrepreneurs, the so-called
culturepreneurs, in creative industries might demonstrate
suitable context-sensitive efforts to establish new markets
and construct new professional fields. By ‘context-sensitive’
we mean approaches that take into account the specificities of place and the particular ways that certain milieus or
economic segments are constituted. Yet, from an analytical
perspective, these agents are confronted with structural paradoxes that are inscribed in their entrepreneurial practices. As
a major focus group of the so-called creative city, they might
be seen in the following as representatives of new modes of
labour with their adjacent governance practices in the field of
creative industries. In the following section of this paper we
shall systematically look at cases of Berlin-based new entrepreneurial agents and formulate empirically rooted questions
on labour formation, while highlighting specific paradoxes
that characterize them.
When speaking about new modes of labour and the procedural forms of market access by new agents we should look
at how they are confronted with structural paradoxes of their
social and work practices. Very generally speaking, two paradoxes – among others — play a crucial role in the articulation
of their work practices: the “Globalization Paradox” and the
“Identity Paradox”. The first addresses the ambivalence between local-based creativity and transnational networks of
production systems as well as localized production networks
that are driven by an ethos of creativity and adhere to an “artistic mode of production”. The latter, the “Identity Paradox”
addresses the ambivalence between individual or collective
careers, identities, and reputations. Inventing static concepts
of entrepreneurs does not lead further, because mavericks
and outsiders as well as independent creative artists play the
major role in this market (Steyaert and Katz, 2004).
The “Globalization Paradox” addresses the ambivalence of
these newly emerged knowledge milieus and their territorial
embedding practices. Being able – thanks to airline carriers
such as RAYNAIR, EASYJET, and AIR BERLIN – to operate worldwide, socio-spatially integrated “communities of knowledge”
gained more and more relevance and thus provide the necessary embedding ground for translocal knowledge workers.
Based on these substantial paradoxes, different governance
modes can be presented, highlighting the degree of irritation, the different interests, and separated logics of action,
when promoting creative industries and their creative agents:
structural paradoxes demonstrate how the institutional setup “creative industries” is constituted and how difficult it is
to invent marketing and place-based strategies to promote
creative industries.
To sum up these conceptual remarks: Based on an integrative
and relational analytical perspective, the production of space
(“spacing”) allows us to analyse the forms, practices and strategies of appropriating, defining, using, and coding urban space
by either creative agents, corporate companies, stakeholders,
and public administration. Therefore, using the analytical
categories of “place and space” from a social constructionist
perspective, it will be possible on the one hand to understand
the performances and social practices that characterize the individual entrepreneurial presence, their perspective on acting
on markets, their corporate identity, formulated as a spatially
rooted narrative. On the other, widening the perspective by
examining the spatial practices of either new (self-organized
intermediaries, see cap. 4) or fully-established institutionalized agents (public administration, see cap. 4), matchmaking
or misfits constellation can be analysed according to the relevant and used communicative resources, strategies as well
as modes of qualification that enables defining, accessing, establishing the “markets” of creative industries. With the help of
these empirical insights, new perspectives on the relationship
between creativity and the city will be presented.
When
Creative Industries
Crossover with
Cities
創意產業與城市發展研討會
2.2.2 The Governance of Place Marketing
City marketing is a particular field in urban governance that
is directly linked to notions of urban competitiveness and
place identity. Cities look (or are supposed to look) at each
other as potential competitors (Harvey, 1989) ; (Sassen, 1999);
(Lever, 1999); (van den Berg and E., 1999). In the context of international competition as political choice they put together
mechanisms to attract tourists, investments or residents
(Ashworth and Voogd, 1990); (Kotler, 1999); (Gold, 1994). The
mechanisms and actors vary from place to place, but there are
certain characteristics that can be identified as common in
most countries of the western world. Two of them are relevant
to this paper and thus merit closer attention. The first common
characteristic is what places city marketing into the context of
urban governance. It usually involves actors from different
fields – state, economy, civil society – though of course resources and scope of action differ substantially among them,
thus creating power discrepancies. The second feature is the
focus of place marketing on questions of identity. What we are
referring to here is “place identity”, a notion extremely difficult
to grasp without falling into the trap of essentialism, historical
myths, clichés, and trivial forms of representation (for a critical
review of place marketing see Kearns (Kearns, 1993). City marketing strategies as a rule involve defining a place’s identity,
tapping it and communicating it in what is then considered
appropriate ways for appropriate target groups.
Understanding the role that different agents play in place
marketing enables us to discern the ways that (place) identity
is discursively constructed, selectively targeted and communicated. In this context the state (or region or city), as the key
player in traditional governance models, pursues a policy that
is supposed to boost a place’s economy. Drawing on existing
marketing models, the aim is not just to sell an existing product (the role of ‘sales’), but to form the product to awaken or
serve needs. This approach gives city marketing a very active
role in shaping the urban and give marketers a position next
to this of planners and other policy makers. Although at first
sight economic development policies, with project or context
oriented support, appear to be a different story, the borders
between the two are increasingly fluid: city marketing may
dictate what is worth promoting (and financing), because it
is deemed consequent with the city’s desired image. Businesses will seek to influence the understanding of a place’s
identity, since it may mean a direct compensation in form of
financial or contextual support. Public-private-partnerships as
a particular governance model are a product of this growing
interest of businesses in fields that were traditionally the privilege of the state. The concept of “power geometries” as it was
125
Conference on
developed above is useful here to look at a certain asymmetry.
Who has access to private-public-partnership models as the
ones just mentioned? Do large and small, old and new, mainstream and marginal businesses have the same access to such
mechanisms? It can be argued (and it will need empirical work
to demonstrate it) that the former ones are traditionally more
interwoven with structures of power. This leads to the question of how the latter react to it. What forms of self-organisation do they deploy to tackle this type of exclusion? We seem
to have here a conflict between two different structures: one
represents forms of organization (political or economical) that
hold power and the other is those forms that demand access
to it.
City marketing can be seen as a spatial phenomenon in two
ways: First of all it is the constantly re-negotiated product of
a conflictual juxtaposition of players, themselves interconnected through ‘geometries of power’. By these we mean both
spatially relevant fields of interest and the resources to enforce
them. These resources may refer to different types of power
– economic, knowledge-based, social or cultural. Secondly,
city marketing forges representations of place, notions of
identity that go far beyond the place’s physical borders connecting it to others. Thus city marketing with the position it
is given today can be understood as a fundamental actor in
place-making.
3. Berlin and its creative industries
3.1. Berlin’s departure and its specific prerequisites
Taking the difficult historical background as a point of departure, Berlin can be considered as a relatively peripheral metropolis, as a politically divided city with parallel institutions
till 1990. Subsidized economies on both sides, few manufacturing industries on the western side and less competitive
industries on the eastern side, Berlin’s start in the European
arena after 1990 has been framed by structural and economic
weaknesses, less-service oriented public institutions and
public policy, and entrepreneurial mentalities always awaiting
federal subsidies (Büttner et al., 2004).
Till today, Berlin demonstrates the paradoxical co-presence
of cramped knowledge sites, some excellent science clusters,
as well as highly attractive cultural scenes, on the one hand
and, severe reduction politics within the realm of universities, research and development on the other. This results in a
mostly self-encumbered lock-in situation, which progressively
endangers any creative steps into a “knowledge-based future”
126
for the metropolitan area as a whole. The transformation into
an independent and less-subsidized urban economy has led
to stable 18-20 % unemployment rates, growing social segregation, and slow but detectable urban polarization (Häußermann and Kapphan, 2002).
3.2. Berlin’s new economic fields
Only few economic segments, such as creative industries,
have evolved positively. Creative industries are defined as a
profit-oriented segment and thus cover all enterprises, entrepreneurs, and self-employed persons producing, marketing,
distributing, and trading profit-oriented cultural and symbolic
goods. In 2005, 21,000 small and medium-sized enterprises
produced a GDP of 8 billion € in Berlin, a share of 11 % of Berlins total GDP. In creative industries, 100,000 employees represent a relevant labour market. In 2004, most of the enterprises
were in the art market (24 %), book- and publications market
(22 %) and the subsegment of architecture (13 %). The strong
position of the art market is based on the high number of design offices self-employed artists. The number of enterprises
increased between 1998 and 2004 by approximately 4,000
start-ups, (appro. 18%). Especially the subsegments software
(+1, 280 enterprises), book and publishing market (+1,120
enterprises) film and television production (+312 enterprises)
and music industry (+300 enterprises) performed positively.
On the contrary, the number of architectural offices decreased
(Senatsverwaltung, 2006, Senatsverwaltung, 2005).
Though Germany’s new capital has been suffering under
continuous socio-economic crises for the last 8-12 years, new
modes of governance appear not only on the political agenda,
but foremost, unexpectedly, and in project-based professional
fields of creative industries. From an economic point of view,
Berlin recently demonstrates that only few sectors (mainly
design production, fashion, and music industry) in the field of
creative industries have developed positively and not only on
an image level: increased number of employees, start-ups in
the field of design, fashion, and music production have led to
rapid change of the urban fabric. In November 2005 UNESCO
appointed Berlin – as the first city in Europe – to the “Creative
Cities Network under the framework of UNESCO’s Global Alliance for Cultural Diversity” awarded Berlin the title of “City of
Design”. The Creative Cities Network is designed to forge new
models of public/private partnerships at city level that can
help to unlock the creative, social, and economic potential of
cultural industries. As the first German city to be appointed to
the Network, Berlin has demonstrated remarkable social, economic, and cultural achievements in the field of design. With a
good grasp of the economic impact of its design industry, the
city of Berlin stands out as an example in coordinating policy,
training and networking support for its stakeholders. Berlin
is up-and-coming in many different design sectors. Almost
11,700 Berliners work in fashion, product and furniture design, architecture, photography, and the visual arts, while the
roughly 6,700 design companies generate annual sales of 1.5
billion € (Senatsverwaltung, 2006). The surroundings, space,
and excellent basic conditions here lay the foundation for
creative work and the development of innovative products.
Designers, fashion designers, photographers, and architects,
according to the UNESCO evaluation of Berlin’s design industry, find artistic freedom, affordable office space and living
costs, networks, as well as a public interested in design. In the
segment of design production the number of entrepreneurs
has tripled between 1993 and 2003. In 2003, 80% of them
act as micro-entrepreneurs with less than three employees,
50 % of them have less than 15.000 € yearly turnover (IDZ,
2003). The crash of the so-called New Economy in the years
2001/2 had tremendous impact on the development of this
professional group. In 2000 and 2001, 186 new companies
had been founded in the design sector of Berlin; in 2003 only
48 enterprises were founded and many employees lost their
jobs and had to move in new directions. Krätke (Krätke, 2002,
p. 139) underpins this observation in the framework of his
study of Berlin’s media economy: the number of media and
communication designers play a key role in this sector, which
in Germany grew between 1994-1998 by 6%, and in Berlin by
almost 10%. (op. cit.). These key figures demonstrate structural data about a relatively new and in the last years growing
professional group.
In the last year, the design sector grew substantially without
being directly pushed or supported by the city administration.
This unexpected and by the Berlin Senate (the city government) in the beginning neglected dynamic field of action has
forced the public administration to rethink their political agenda: While focusing on the “potential“ of self-organised and
completely independently operating creative-based service
segment, the public administrative sector had to find appropriate ways to govern these growing knowledge and creativity
based economies. Conceptually, structural paradoxes caused
by the challenge of managing and organizing creativity in the
cultural industries seem to restrain “traditional” socio-technocratic practices of governing the mobile and autonomy driven
creative-based economies (Lampel et al., 2000).
When
Creative Industries
Crossover with
Cities
創意產業與城市發展研討會
3.3. The “culturepreneur” – representatives of Berlin’s
neo-liberal economic mode?
One of the key urban and cultural developments in post-reunification Berlin is the emergence of new hybrid cultural as well
as entrepreneurial agents, the so-called Culturepreneurs. (For
similar observations see (Davies and Ford, 1998), (McRobbie,
2002 for London); for Berlin: see (Lange, 2005a, Lange, 2007);
for Frankfurt on Main: see (Lange and Steets, 2002); for Vienna:
(Ellmeier, 2003). On the one hand, this development has led to
a substantial reconsideration of “entrepreneurship” and space
(cf. (Steyaert and Katz, 2004), on the other, to new thinking on
the notion of learning, professionalization, and trust within
entrepreneurial networks (Rae, 2004), (Sydow et al., 2004).
First of all, the term Culturepreneur is a portmanteau word,
comprising both the cultural and the entrepreneur. It was first
suggested by Davies/Ford (Davies and Ford, 1998, 13) following Pierre Bourdieu‘s typological notion of an entrepreneur
who embodies various forms of capital (cf. (Bourdieu, 1986,
241). The term “Culturepreneur” describes an urban protagonist who possesses the ability to mediate between and interpret the areas of culture and of service provision. There is as yet
no adequate professional category for the ”curator”, ”communication manager”, ”trend scout”, ”interaction designer” who
is transparently multi-skilled and ever willing to pick up new
forms of expertise. He or she may then be characterised, first
and foremost, as a creative entrepreneur, someone who runs
clubs, record shops, fashion shops, galleries, and other outlets,
who closes gaps in the urban with new social, entrepreneurial
and socio-spatial practices. Such knowledge and information
based intermediaries increasingly emerged in the gallery, art
and multimedia scene in different European metropolises,
foremost in London in the 1990‘s. Davies/Ford (op. cit.) have
characterised this type of people who, in structural terms, are
communicative providers of transfer services between the
sub-systems “business related services” and “creative scene”
and, in doing so, seem to satisfy a necessary demand (Koppetsch and Burkart, 2002, 532).
The creative industries’ rapid increase in Berlin is based on
the emergence of large quantities of micro-entrepreneurial
agents in these professional fields. Because of that, a new
structural type acts as a new hybrid player in cultural industries. This type has to balance a high degree of cultural and
artistic as well as economic practices with their respective
forms of knowledge. It is important to mention that cultural
and creative expertise on the one hand, and business expertise pose very diverse forms of rationalities that imply not only
systematic paradoxes; they also lead to precarious structural
127
Conference on
problems on forming an entrepreneurial identity. Apart from
neutral and “objective” descriptions of the novelty, it has to be
asked to what degree these agents represent a new prototype
as a neo-liberal urbanite?
Focussing on new agents in a newly moulded market, it will be
interesting to understand how these new agents accumulate
appropriate forms of knowledge and expertise in order to act
on a still insecure, rather instable and fast-changing market.
Codified and formally acquired forms of technical, expert or
production knowledge do not guarantee establishing a successful business position. Their situation rather forces them to
collaborate, interact and get into exchange with other competitors, always risking and being confronted loosing their
primary innovative idea and product. This perspective takes
also into account, that, as David Rae puts it, a “new generation
of entrepreneurs are little understood by policymakers, and
educational policy fails to prepare people for entrepreneurial
activity”. That means the mix of creative and business skills of
cultural entrepreneurship will be learned rather from experiences and peers than in ‘inflexible’ environment of educational
institutions. But where is and who provides the appropriate
environment?
3.4. Formats, agents, and practices of marketing Berlin
as the “place of creativity”
Creativity has been a constant ‘message’ in Berlin city marketing since the late 1990s. What professionals see in it, is the
possibility of creating a symbolic distance between the Berlin
of World War II or of the Wall and the “New Berlin” as the campaign of the 1990s was called. Creativity seems a very fertile
ground for re-defining a city’s identity as its connotations are
only positive: dynamism, youth, growth, emotions, experiences, fantasy etc. thus it is often hard to tell what the product of
efficient place marketers is. Groups that are targeted through
such campaigns are “firms, workers and residents” as Schrock
and Markusen put it (Schrock and Markusen, 2005, 51). To
understand why these groups are targeted and through what
institutions that takes place, we need to take a closer look into
Berlin’s particular situation.
Tourism services in the form of information offices is something very common even in the smallest German town. Active marketing policy, including campaigns of all types, are
usually to be found in regions or larger cities. In Berlin it is the
private-public-partnership organization called BTM (Berlin
Tourismus Marketing) responsible for promoting Berlin as a
tourist destination. The main city marketing organization is
Berlin Partners, another public-private-partnership, where the
128
city of Berlin, the Chamber of Industry and Commerce, the
Berlin state bank, almost 150 mostly medium size companies,
but also universities and other educational organizations participate in a broad network of partners. Their scope of action is
very wide: it includes promoting Berlin as a business location
and a political decision-making centre, as a city of creativity,
technology and education, but also assist potential investors
and enhance export. Besides these two larger organizations,
the administration itself, both at federal, state and municipality level pursue their own city marketing policy, have their own
contacts and political agendas. Cultural foundations as for example the Goethe-Institute or organizations such as the Berlin
Trade Fair Centre, that both do their own place marketing, add
to the complexity of the picture. Creativity is central on the
agenda of all the institutions mentioned above. Through its
connotations of young and diverse, creativity suits perfectly
well the city that defines itself through the same terms. But
what formats are used to promote creativity?
A large portion of the literature on city marketing focuses on
events (Kearns, 1993), (Waitt, 1999), (Stevenson et al., 2005),
(Gotham, 2002, Gotham, 2005) and advertising (Gold, 1994)
as the main instruments of city marketing. Large public space
events, such as the Love Parade, Christopher Street Day Parade
(the gay and lesbian pride parade), the Carnival of the Cultures
of the World are only some examples from Berlin. Interestingly
enough, all of these were originally initiatives of (more or less)
marginalised groups, that were subsequently tapped and
marketed, thus contributing to Berlin’s image as a colourful,
tolerant and creative city.
But these are just the obvious ones. There is a lot more to city
marketing, not always visible from the outside. Business development works through networking, relations, lobbying and
promises. Tourism through contracts, business policies and
events far outside the physical borders of the city. Inhabitants
are attracted by complex things like “quality of life” or “lifestyle”.
Is there be such a thing as “creative city” in the first place? Some
kind of elusive quality, an “air”“atmosphere”, “ambiance” (all of
them words that try to grasp the ungraspable) that makes one
place more creative than another? One risk in city marketing
is that it essentializes such qualities, ignores their conflictual
nature, oversimplifies them and fixes them in time.
Looking at city marketing in the context of power relations,
we can discern not only what is highlighted, but also what is
not said. Which spaces, people and lifestyles are communicated and which are silenced? Creativity as the new ‘buzz word’
is always in the front – but which notion of creativity targets
or reaches what kind of spaces, agents and economic fields?
What about the spaces of migrants? The spaces of the urban
poor? Spaces constituted through gender relations? Spaces of
everyday life, which, we will argue, can be very creative? City
marketing will by-pass anything that does not fit the picture.
4. Case studies in design production
A preliminary methodological remark: individual cases, groupspecific self-descriptions, as well as statements made by public
authorities mentioned below aim at generating themes, categories and narratives from sequences of guideline-supported
and semi-standardised interviews. What will come to the fore
are above all living world-related aspects as well as situational
and socio-spatial ascriptions that provide a superior-level explanatory basis for certain actors, their associated professional
groups, and their social and professional networks as well as
their professional and institutionalized logics. They do not
provide information about an individual case or an individual
opinion, nor will they be understood proverbially, but they will
provide systematic empirical material about the specific social
networks, its milieus, social arenas, as well as its institutional
local, regional and supra-regional intertwining, which are articulated in the sequences of the case.
4.1“Greige”: Practicing the beginning of
entrepreneurship, positioning on markets
Some indisputable key features of the first case: it deals with
three men, aged 27, 32 and 35; two of them studied graphic
design in Cologne until 2000. They worked there parallel
during their studies in different offices and agencies and
gathered additional experiences after graduating as employees with far-reaching competences and tasks in other – also
international - agencies. In late 2001 they move from Cologne
to Berlin, search for office space in Prenzlauer Berg borough,
find something suitable and found their own office. It has a
floor space of approx. 145 sqm and is a disused shop near
Helmholtzplatz. The rental is quite cheap, they redecorate
the rooms themselves, bring their equipment, ‘organise’ table
boards, an Internet connection is established via a free hanging cable from their window across the courtyard to another
next door office. Work commences with an enormous party.
“Universal dilettanti”
Their identity-creating work is rooted in their training as
graphic designers at the University of Applied Sciences so that
they may be called – in the widest sense – design intensive
symbol producers. They define their contentual specifications
with the term “holistic designs”, which for them implies a nec-
When
Creative Industries
Crossover with
Cities
創意產業與城市發展研討會
essary high design standards as well as an artistic self-image
in the performance of their activities. This contentual specification shows, on the one hand, artistic motives, on the other
it is unspecific in terms of content, adjustable and extremely
variable. The project studies trained them to become “universal dilettanti”. Their project-based studies at the University of
Applied Sciences was characterised by open structures till
to ’quasi pre-programmed independence‘. These self-ascriptions show learned but also unquestioned flexibility demands
aimed at attaining the necessary and profession biographically desired expressivity as well as absolute professional but
also contentual self-control.
“Regaining action security”
Conditioned by the outlined socialisation patterns of their
education, the transition to their pure working life appears to
be basically successively prepared from their living world. Actually, there is no well-defined entrance into the working life;
education and working life are rather entwined over several
years. The continuation of those parallel phases systematically
manifests itself in the conceptualisation of their business: It
will be established – besides a thematic openness – also in socio-organisational terms as an interaction platform and docking station for third, friendly, acquainted and professionally
associated actors that are deemed of interest. The consequential “working in a team“ entails a professional integration of
like-minded friends, partners and even lifetime companions.
Consistently, the name of the “Greige“ office does not cite the
names of the owners as is customary in Germany, e.g. Springer
& Jacoby. The name “Greige“, a reference to a colour between
grey and beige as coined by Le Corbusier, is not to point to
persons but to the socio-organisational idea of interdisciplinary work in network structures. Work in networks is structured
systemically where every actor from different European cities
who temporarily collaborates on a project contributes his or
her skills. This organisational structure can be highly, swiftly
and flexibly to any external requirements: Thus, new enquiries
and orders can be responded to within a few hours or days
by putting together appropriate teams and present itself to
third-party clients not only as a quantitatively large but likewise perfectly suited design office.
Organising networks, inventing places
Consistently, this organisational model combines and links
working and private spheres. Strictly speaking there are no
classical working time models and time structure models, the
previously separated living world spheres of “work” and “leisure” are defined according to specific order and employment
situations. The organisational structures of actors in the field
129
Conference on
of symbol-intensive service providers analysed in this paper
swiftly point to parlous subsistence conditions of urban cultural-economic transformation structures but also to strategic
responses. Hence, the further course will focus on questions of
tactics and strategies in order to establish their entrepreneurial practices on a flexible, quickly changing market in times of
extremely tough competition (due to hardly any order intake).
The necessary organisational competitive character of the
‘Greige’ enterprise highlights communicative strategies to
make proactive use of the micro-location ‘office’, in the sense
of place-making, as a hub for fluid social communalisation
and cultural scenes.
4.2 Create Berlin – formalising professional networks
The next case, this of the network CREATE BERLIN, should help
us understand better how Berlin designers understand themselves and their role on the one hand and what strategies they
deploy to participate in place-making on the other. CREATE
BERLIN is an association of designers, founded at the beginning of 2006 only a few months after the UNESCO awarded
Berlin the title of “City of Design”. It is worth looking at the exact wording of their self-description and read its rhetoric :
“CREATE BERLIN is an initiative both by and for Berlin Designers. CREATE BERLIN unites creative minds and design
producing talent from agencies, companies and institutions
in Fashion Design, Product / Interior Design and New Media
/ Graphic Design as a network spanning all design disciplines.
As ambassador of Berlin Design, CREATE BERLIN presents the
creative variety of the Berlin Design Scene and promotes with
national and international engagement the economic potential of Berlin’s design industry and strengthens Berlin’s reputation of a unique and aspiring design metropolis and of “City
of Design”, as awarded by the UNESCO. CREATE BERLIN lives
on the engagement of the people of Berlin’s creative industry
- their energies invested in the city have a trend-setting effect
on Berlin and accelerate the heart beat of the city.” (www.create-berlin.de)
There are several elements here that are relevant to this paper:
First of all the use of words such as “initiative” and “network”.
This shows a self-definition which focuses on informal, more
flexible forms of organization, very much like the players
identified in new governance models – also emphasized by
the inclusion of both “companies” and “institutions”. Secondly,
CREATE BERLIN sees its role as a “national” and “international”
promoter of the city’s “economic potential” and “reputation”
– both notions directly linked with the idea of place marketing – thus aspiring at becoming a prime player in governance
130
structures. And finally, it is recognized here that place-making
occurs through “energies” or people’s actions. The birth of CREATE BERLIN can be seen as a reaction of the designer scene
to their exclusion from traditional state-regulated forms of
power. It is one of the forms of self-organisation mentioned
above, to ensure that young, small and marginal businesses
are taken seriously as equal players in economic development
and city marketing policies.
4.3 Initiative “Projekt Zukunft” (initiative „project future)
From the administrational side, there have been serious attempts to identify, support and market the city’s creative
potential. The Berlin Senate (local government) and especially
the Department of Economy, Technology and Women’s Issues
has initiated a project called Projekt Zukunft (=project future),
aiming at creating networks among media and IT business on
the one hand, and at linking them with science, politics and
the administration on the other. Through marketing and information campaigns, public-private-partnerships, publications
or events, it promotes economic and cultural innovations. The
fields targeted here range from information technology, telecommunications, e-government and up to the cultural economy. As a fully institutionalized administrative body, “project
future” distributes financial aid for future-oriented economic
fields and their agents. This administrative mode is closely
connected to fordistic principles: it redirects money. A closer
look demonstrates that the field it is supposed to support
represents a rather unspecific portfolio: technology support,
marketing, providing information via databases etc. The wide
range of support for new technologies highlights paradoxical
circumstances. When, in the past, public administration had
to support one company with 1000 employees, today, it has
to demonstrate responsibility for 1000 companies with one
‘self-employee’. Besides, creative agents mostly represent a
generation of 25-40 year olds, often associated with quickly
changing trends in style, taste, habitus, location preferences,
etc. Seeing it as a typical generational behaviour with high
rates of residential mobility, changing workplaces etc, why
should an urban administration invest in these fluid, self-seeking, experimental life-worlds? The future orientation of the
well formulated and suitable “project future” appears to be
caught in the trap of creativity. Distributing money in highly
risky, less established delete space and unproved entrepreneurial and creativity-based endeavours of emerging projects
leads to constraints especially for young agents. How can a
young, aspiring creative entrepreneur convince an administration whose logics of distributing its resources is rooted in
the fordistic past?
5. Discussion
Marketing the creativity of Berlin is considered by many as very
promising for the city’s future. Not only does it fit Berlin’s selfunderstanding as part of international knowledge-based networks, it also places the city as the avant-garde of a particular
economic restructuring in the framework of capitalist globalization. As we already mentioned above, marketing is a highly
selective process, in which places are seen as homogeneous,
unchangeable and bounded entities. It reproduces representations of place with very concrete material consequences: it
addresses, with the best intentions, a young, suitable group of
agents, while silently excluding, neglecting, and marginalizing
others. Using creativity as the ‘synecdoche’ of the urban, we
need to recognize how this cements or challenges relations of
power. In other words we need to discern the ways in which it
also reproduces winners and losers.
Berlin’s particular position in the context of creative industries
can be seen as a direct result both of its own economic/political restructuring of the post-reunification era and as part of a
worldwide reorganization of work and governance models.
Berlin’s economic hybridity makes it difficult to use obvious
categories such as Fordism vs. post-Fordism or neo-liberal vs.
regulative to describe processes taking place. The culturepreneur is one possible answer to this growing hybridization, a
flexible and precarious urbanite caught between the paradoxes of different systems: on the one hand a state that by
and large follows a Fordistic organizational principle and on
the other hand the reality of a market that is abandoning it.
Reacting to this discrepancy the culturepreneurs create their
own spaces of interaction where borders blur: competition
and cooperation, exchange and isolation, private and public,
work and leisure co-exist and are hard to tell apart. They invent
forms or self-organization to gain access to power structures,
based on informal conglomerates and extensive networks.
They represent a new (or is it old?) way of making one’s living.
Based on the already mentioned theoretical reflections about
the way we understand space, we can conclusively recognize
two divergent, yet interwoven and highly dynamic patterns:
The first one concerns the way we understand place marketing: it formulates bounded concepts of spaces – such as precise
historical spaces or clear entities of creative production – while
seeing spaces as homogenized and fixed entities. Marketing
has to exclude “others”, such as the indefinable, the hidden
spaces, the precarious, the dark side of a new economic mode.
In doing so, an image and spatial representation of the exiting,
desirable and aesthetically clean is being transported as the
product of marketers around the globe. Creative economies
When
Creative Industries
Crossover with
Cities
創意產業與城市發展研討會
with their ‘attractive’ life-worlds, hidden spaces, ‘exiting’ work
conditions and their new ever-lasting consumptive demands
seem to be the ready-made image for marketing. The second
pattern seems to be the negation of the first: the sketched
empirical results demonstrate that those targeted creative
‘objects’ are of a rather different constitution, perpetually
changing, continually instable, highly mobile and operating in
temporary projects. Their socio-economic mode of the urban
does not seem to fit into the image of the marketers. While
looking closer we have detected forms and representations
of self-governance (case Greige) as well as institutionalized
forms of representation and organization (case Create Berlin).
Their spatial action patterns change, and thus constantly redefine their identity. And, we will conclude, identities are only
understandable through their changing nature.
The most obvious forms of paradoxes can be found in the
efforts of the public administration stimulating the creative
economy. It is now widely accepted in the administration that
context-improvement seems to be the only legitimate form
of ‘helping’ creative agents. Projekt Zukunft, as we have seen
targets a wide range of future economic fields, but seems to
be trapped in traditional forms of economic development derived from the industrialized past. We could interpret the project as a rather timid attempt of the administration to adapt to
a different organization of economy.
While city marketing is selling the specific creative ‘air’ and
atmosphere of Berlin’s newly emerged economy, it leads to an
acceleration of spatial dynamics: international tourists, consumers from around the globe are not only desired consumers and clients – they indirectly boost the speed of necessary
innovation and production cycles. What is cool, trendy, hip
and on the top list of marketers one day, is out, old-fashioned
uninteresting the next. Marketing thus propels the dynamics
of creative production and its consumptive patterns with an
ever higher pace. It forces the creative agents and culturepreneurs to increase their speed of production, at the same time
demanding adequate forms of governance and positioning
in the urban,. An often too simplistic mode of marketing the
creative potential, based on homogenised spatial understandings, demises and eliminates the creative seeds of a new
economic field of action.
131
Conference on
6. References
Ashworth, G. J. and Voogd, H. (1990) Selling the city: marketing approaches in public sector urban planning, London u.a.,
Belhaven.
Awotona, A. (1997) Tradition, location and community : placemaking and development, Aldershot u.a., Avebury.
Balducci, A. (2004) Creative Governance in Dynamic City Regions, DISP, 158 21-26.
Binder, B. (2001) Capital under construction. History and the
Production of Locality in Comtemporary Berlin, Ethnologia
Europaea, 31 (2): 19-40.
Binder, B. (2004) National Narratives and Cosmopolitan
Dreams. Becoming a Capital in Late Modernity, Ethnologia
Europaea, 34 (2): 129-140.
Bourdieu, P. (1986) ‘The Forms of Capital. In: Richardson, J. (Ed.)
Handbook of Theory and Research of the Sociology of Education, pp. 241-258. Westport: Greenwood Press.
Bröckling, U. (2004) ‘Kreativität. In: Bröckling, U., Krasmann, S. &
Lemke, T. (Eds.) Glossar der Gegenwart, pp. 139-144. Frankfurt
am Main: Suhrkamp.
Büttner, K., Lange, B., Jähnke, P. and Matthiesen, U. (2004)
Zwischen Spardiktat und Exzellenzansprüchen – Wissensstadt
Berlin, DISP, 156 75-87.
Cook, I., Crouch, D., Naylor, S. and Ryan, J. (Eds.) (2000) Cultural
turns / Geographical turns. Perspectives on Cultural Geography. Harlow u.a.: Prentice Hall.
Davies, A. and Ford, S. (1998) Art Capital, Art Monthly, 1 (213):
12-20.
Drake, G. (2003) ‘This place gives me space’: place and creativity in the creative industries, Geoforum, 34 (4): 511-524.
Ellmeier, A. (2003) Cultural entrepreneurialism: on the changing relationship between the arts, culture and employment 1,
The international journal of cultural policy, 9 (1): 3-16.
Florida, R. (2002) The Rise of the Creative Class: And how it’s
transforming Work, Leisure, Community and Everyday Life,
New York, Basic Books.
Florida, R. (2005) The Flight of the Creative Class, New York,
Routledge.
Fürst, D., Lahner, M. and Zimmermann, K. (2004) Neue Ansätze
integrierter Stadtteilentwicklung: placemaking und local governance, Erkner, Irs.
Gold, J. R. (1994) Place promotion : the use of publicity and
marketing to sell towns and regions, Chichester u.a., Wiley.
132
Gotham, F. K. (2002) Marketing Mardi Gras: Commodification,
Spectacle and the Political Economy of Tourism in New Orleans, Urban Studies, 39 (10): 1735-1756.
Gotham, K. F. (2005) Theorizing urban spectacles. Festivals,
tourism and the transformation of urban space, City, 9 (2):
225-246.
Kotler, P. (1999) Marketing places Europe : how to attract
investments, industries, residents and visitors to cities, communities, regions and nations in Europe, Harlow u.a., Financial
Times Prentice Hall.
Krätke, S. (2002) Medienstadt. Urbane Cluster und globale
Zentren der Kulturproduktion, Opladen, Leske + Budrich.
Hall, P. and Pfeiffer, U. (2000) Urban future 21 : a global agenda
for twenty-first century cities, London u.a., Spon.
Kunzmann, K. R. (2004) An Agenda for Creative Governance in
City Regions, DISP, 158 5-10.
Harvey, D. (1989) From managerialism to entrepreneurialism:
the transformation of governance in late capitalism, Geografska Annaler, 71 B 3-17.
Lampel, J., Lant, T. and Shamsie, J. (2000) Balancing Act: Learning from Organizing Practices in Cultural Industries, Organization science, 11 (3): 263-269.
Häußermann, H. and Kapphan, A. (2002) Berlin: von der geteilten zur gespaltenen Stadt?. Sozialräumlicher Wandel seit
1990, Opladen, Leske + Budrich.
Landry, C. (Ed.) (1996) The creative city in Britain and Germany.
London: Anglo-German Foundation.
Healey, P. (2006) Transforming governance: Challenges of institutional adaptation and a new politics of space, European
planning studies, 14 (3): 299-320.
Heinelt, H. (2004) ‘Governance auf lokaler Ebene. In: Benz, A.
(Ed.) Governance - Regieren in komplexen Regelsystemen, pp.
29-44. Opladen: Leske + Budrich.
Helbrecht, I. (1998) The Creative Metropolis. Services, Symbols,
and Spaces, International Journal of Architectural Theory 3,
(1): 1-10.
Helbrecht, I. (2004) Bare Geographies in Knowledge Societies
- Creative Cities as Text and Piece of Art: Two Eyes, One Vision,
Built environment, 30 (3): 194-203.
Hospers, G.-J. (2003) Creative City: Breeding Places in the
Knowledge Economy, Knowledge, Technology, & Policy, 16
(3): 143-162.
IDZ (Ed.) (2003) Designszene Berlin. Berlin: Internationales
Design Zentrum (IDZ).
Jessop, B. (1998) ‘The Narrative of Entreprise and the Entreprise of Narrative: Place-Marketing and the Entrepreneurial
Ciy. In: Hubbard, P. & Hall, T. (Eds.) The Entrepreneurial City, pp.
77-102. Sussex: Wiley.
Kearns, G. (1993) ‘The City as Spectacle: Paris and the Bicentenary of the French Revolution. In: Kearns, G. & Philo, C. (Eds.)
Selling Places: The City as Cultural capital, past and Present, pp.
xy. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Koppetsch, C. and Burkart, G. (2002) Werbung und Unternehmensberatung als “Treuhänder” expressiver Werte? Talcott
Parsons’ Professionssoziologie und die neuen ökonomischen
Kulturvermittler, Berliner Journal für Soziologie, 12 (4): 531550.
Lange, B. (2005a) ‘Landscapes of cultural scenes: socio-spatial emplacement strategies of “Culturepreneurs” in Berlin.
In: d`Hauteserre, A.-M. & Terkenli, T. S. (Eds.) Landscape of a
new cultural economy of space, pp. 41-67. Dordrecht: Kluwer
Press.
Lange, B. (2005b) Socio-spatial strategies of Culturepreneurs.
The example of Berlin and its new professional scenes,
Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsgeographie (Special Issue: Ökonomie und Kultur), 49 (2): 81-98.
Lange, B. (2007) Die Räume der Kreativszenen. Culturepreneurs und ihre Orte in Berlin, Bielefeld, Transcriptverlag.
Lange, B. and Steets, S. (2002) ‘Cool Frankfurt? Verortungsstrategien von “New Entrepreneurs” In: Bittner, R. (Ed.) Die Stadt als
Event. Zur Konstruktion urbaner Erlebnisräume, pp. 300-321.
Frankfurt am Main: Campus-Verlag.
Lever, W. F. (1999) Competitive Cities in Europe, Urban Studies,
36 (5-6): 1029-1944.
Löw, M. (2001) Raumsoziologie, Frankfurt am Main,
Suhrkamp.
Massey, D. (1994) Space, place and gender, Cambridge, Polity
Press.
Massey, D. (2005) For space, London u.a., Sage.
McRobbie, A. (2002) Clubs to Companies: Notes on the Decline
of Political Culture in Speeded up Creative Worlds, Cultural
studies, 16 (4): 516-531.
Osten, M. v. (2003) ‘Einleitung. In: Osten, M. v. & Bismarck, B.
v. (Eds.) Norm der Abweichung, pp. 7-18. Zürich u.a.: Edition
Voldemeer.
When
Creative Industries
Crossover with
Cities
創意產業與城市發展研討會
Philo, C. (2000) ‘More words, more worlds: Reflections on the
“cultural turn” and human geography. In: Cook, I., Crouch,
D., Naylor, S. & Ryan, J. R. (Eds.) Cultural Turns / Geographical
Turns: Perspektives on Cultural Geography, pp. 26-54. London:
Harlow.
Rae, D. (2004) Practical theories from entrepreneurs´stories:
discursive approaches to entrepreneurial learning, Journal of
Small Business and Entreprise Development, 11 (2): 195-202.
Rainisto, S. K. (2003) Success Factors of Place Marketing: A
Study of Place Marketing Practices in Northern Europe and
the United States, Espoo, Finland, Helsinki University of Technology.
Sassen, S. (1999) ‘Globalisation and Telecommunications:
Impact on the Future of Urban Centrality. In: Ling (Ed.) Model
Cities, pp. 134-143.
Schrock, G. and Markusen, A. (2005) ‘The Distinctive City: Urban Occupational Specialization and Implications for Development Policy. In: Sonnabend, R. & Stein, R. (Eds.) The other
cities, IBA Stadtumbau 2010: Urban Distinctiveness, pp. xy.
Berlin/Dessau: Jovis/Edition Bauhaus.
Scott, A. J. (2006) Creative Cities: Conceptual Issues and Policy
Questions, Journal of urban affairs, 28 (1): 1-18.
Senatsverwaltung (2005) Kulturwirtschaft in Berlin. Entwicklung und Potenziale 2005. Berlin, Senatsverwaltung für
Wirtschaft, Arbeit und Frauen in Berlin.
Senatsverwaltung (2006) Berlin – Stadt des Designs. Berlin,
Senatsverwaltung für Wirtschaft, Arbeit und Frauen in Berlin.
Stevenson, D., Rowe, D. and Markwell, K. (2005) Explorations in
‘Event Technology’: The Case of the International Gay Games,
Social Identities, 11 (5): 447-465.
Steyaert, C. and Katz, J. (2004) Reclaiming the space of entrepreneurship in society: geographical, discursive and social
dimensions, Entrepreneurship and regional development, 16
(3): 179-196.
Sydow, J., Lindkvist, L. and Defillippi, R. (2004) Project-Based
Organizations, Embeddedness and Repositories of Knowledge: Editorial, Organization studies, 25 (9): 1475-1490.
van den Berg, L. and E., B. (1999) Urban Competitiveness, Marketing and the Need for Organising Capacity, Urban Studies,
36 (5-6): 987-999.
Waitt, G. (1999) Playing Games with Sydney: Marketing Sydney for the 2000 Olympics, Urban Studies, 36 (7): 1055-1077.
Peck, J. (2005) Struggling with the creative class. Studies in
Political Economy. Toronto, York University.
133