Recent theories about the rise of the ‘creative class’ suggest that skilled workers in knowledge-intensive jobs are attracted to cities which contain cultural amenities and a diverse population. In new research using Chicago census tract data, Bradley Bereitschaft and Rex Cammack test this theory. They find that neighborhood diversity is a weak predictor of where creative class workers chose to live, and that more traditional factors, such as home values, schools, and transport were more likely to predict a higher proportion of creative class workers in a neighborhood

Bereitschaft, Bradley

Cammack, Rex

LSE Research Online

blogs.lse.ac.ukhttp://blogs.lse.ac.uk/usappblog/2015/10/27/neighborhood-diversity-plays-a-limited-role-in-the-residential-preferences-of-creative-class-workers-in-chicago/Neighborhood diversity plays a limited role in the residentialpreferences of creative class workers in ChicagoRecent theories about the rise of the ‘creative class’ suggest that skilled workers in knowledge-intensive jobs are attracted to cities which contain cultural amenities and a diverse population. Innew research using Chicago census tract data, Bradley Bereitschaft and Rex Cammack testthis theory. They find that neighborhood diversity  is a weak predictor of where creative classworkers chose to live, and that more traditional factors, such as home values, schools, andtransport were more likely to predict a higher proportion of creative class workers in aneighborhood.Richard Florida’s well-known, though widely critiqued, creative class theory suggests that highlyskilled workers with creative- and knowledge-intensive occupations (e.g., science andengineering, technology, art and media, business and finance, law, medicine) are drawn toparticular cities and neighborhoods primarily on the basis of so-called “quality of place” amenities.Thick labor markets, active social, cultural and entertainment scenes, and a tolerant atmosphereas approximated using indices of diversity are typically cited among the primary pull factors.Among these assets, diversity is often the most controversial in terms of its ability to attractcreative class workers and catalyze economic growth.Though research on the migration of creative workers between cities and regions have generally indicated thatemployment opportunities still outweigh all other considerations (including “quality of place” amenities), much lessis known about what attracts the creative class to particular neighborhoods. Florida and other scholars havesuggested that creative workers are more likely to exhibit a distinct preference for older, establishedneighborhoods that offer a stimulating urban lifestyle with a diversity of people and an array of potentialexperiences. Diversity may be particularly appealing to “footloose” creative workers who migrant between cities insearch of better career prospects. These migrants may interpret diverse cities and neighborhoods as morewelcoming to outsiders, with lower barriers to integration and acceptance, regardless of sexuality, race, orethnicity.Yet, are creative class workers more likely to live in diverse neighborhoods? If so, does the type of diversitymatter? We set about answering these questions using demographic and employment data from 1,983 censustracts (a scale that provides a close approximation of urban neighborhoods in the US) across the central fivecounties of the greater Chicago region. Four types of diversity were examined: income, language, race, andsexual orientation as measured using the proportion of gay households per census tract. In addition to examiningthe creative class as one broad occupational group, we also looked at three creative class occupational sub-classes: computer/engineering/science (CES), education/library/training (ELT), and art/design/entertainment(ADE) occupations.In the process of modeling the relationship between the creative class and neighborhood diversity it wasnecessary to control for other potentially attractive urban attributes and amenities including high home values,proximity to “top” grade schools and colleges/universities, availability of green/open space, access to rail depots,and proximity to “third places” such as coffee shops, bars/pubs, cafés, and bookstores.An initial set of “global” regression models were used to examine the relationships between variables across theentire study area. Taken together, the models indicated that census tracts with a higher proportion of gayhouseholds and income diversity were statistically more likely to have higher concentrations of creative classworkers. Census tracts with higher levels of linguistic and racial diversity, however, tended to have lowerproportions of creative class workers overall, but a higher proportion of workers with CES occupations.The results of the global modeling procedure suggest that the spatial associations between neighborhooddiversity and the creative class vary by type of diversity as well as specific occupational grouping. Additionally,although neighborhood diversity proved to be statistically significant in several models, overall it was a relativelyweak predictor of which census tracts creative class workers were likely to live in. Measures of neighborhooddiversity with the highest explanatory power included percentage of gay households, which explained 6.5 percentof the variability in the proportion of workers with CES occupations, and linguistic diversity, which explained 3.2percent of the variability in the proportion of workers with ELT occupations. This is quite low compared to severalcontrol variables including median home value, which accounted for 19 to 65 percent of the variability in creativeclass workers across all models.To get a clearer picture of how the relationships between the creative class and neighborhood diversity varythroughout the Chicago study area, we utilized a popular new geographic technique known as geographically-weighted regression (GWR). In contrast to global regression models, which produce a single equation describingthe relationships between independent and dependent variables, GWR generates separate equations for eachindividual observation – in this case, each individual census tract.Overall, the predictive capability of the models increased significantly when using GWR, indicating that thestrength and direction of the relationships between the creative class and neighborhood diversity often variedsubstantially across the study area. This can be seen in Figure 1, where the blue areas indicate negativeassociations between the creative class total and the indicated type of diversity, and the red and orange areasindicate positive associations. The relationships between the creative class and both racial diversity and linguisticdiversity, for example, show similar patterns across the Chicago area with positive associations mainly south andwest of downtown (including Bronzeville to the south and Oak Park to the west; Figure 2) and negativeassociations throughout much of the suburbs.Figure 1 – Significant positive (red/orange) and significant negative (blue) associations between fourtypes of neighborhood diversity and the proportion of workers with creative class occupations across theChicago, Illinois study area. Although neighborhood diversity appears to play a rather limited role overall in predicting where within Chicagocreative class workers are likely to settle, the GWR analysis demonstrated that there exists considerable spatialvariation in the strength of these relationships. This is not unexpected given the wide range of values andpreferences within the creative class itself, and the shifting needs and desires that accompany different life-cyclestages. “Classic” locational factors (i.e., home values, top schools, proximity to transit & open space) were, inmany models, much stronger predictors of the proportion of creative class workers per census tract, supportingthe notion that “quality of place” amenities, including diversity, are at best secondary factors in the intra-urbanlocation decision of creative class workers.Figure 2 – Oak Park is one of the few neighborhoods in Chicago to exhibit a positive association betweenboth racial and linguistic diversity and the proportion of workers with creative class occupations.Photo credit: Bradley BereitschaftCrucially, the spatial relationships between diversity and the creative class observed in this Chicago case studywere often negative, suggesting that polarization along racial and ethnic lines remains quite stubborn, even asmany inner city neighborhoods undergo rapid socio-economic change. If the goal is to reduce spatial inequalityand segregation, then the results of this study suggest that municipal (and regional where applicable)governments will need to be more pro-active in stimulating diversity while at the same time ensuring access toaffordable housing when faced with “creative gentrification”.This article is based on the paper, ‘Neighborhood diversity and the creative class in Chicago’, in AppliedGeography, which is open access and free to read.Please read our comments policy before commenting.            Note:  This article gives the views of the author, and not the position of USAPP – American Politics and Policy, northe London School of Economics.Shortened URL for this post: http://bit.ly/1RBuCAM _________________________________ About the authorsBradley Bereitschaft – University of Nebraska at OmahaBradley Bereitschaft is an Assistant Professor in the department of Geography/Geology at theUniversity of Nebraska at Omaha. His research interests primarily concern issues of equity,livability, and sustainability in the urban environment.  Rex Cammack – University of Nebraska at OmahaRex Cammack is an Associate Professor in the department of Geography/Geology at the University of Nebraskaat Omaha. His areas of interest include cartography and geographic information systems.CC BY-NC 3.0 2015 LSE USAPP

Neighborhood diversity plays a limited role in the residential preferences of creative class workers in Chicago

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

LSE Research Online