City, Culture and Society 1 (2010) 193–198

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

City, Culture and Society

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ccs

Constructing the creative neighborhood: Hopes and limitations

of creative city policies in Berlin
Doreen Jakob ⇑
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Department of Communication Studies, CB #3285, Bingham Hall, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3285, USA
Center for Metropolitan Studies, Ernst-Reuter-Platz 7, 10587 Berlin, Germany

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Recent urban development policies have put much emphasis on the establishment of creative cities. The
Received 2 September 2010 creative city promises to be a new city, a transformative shift from the existing and conventional ways of
Accepted 11 January 2011 urbanization to one that includes creativity and livability for all. Yet, this goal is often not achieved nor is
it even necessarily pursued. The dominant creative city policies are not different from the current system
of urban entrepreneurialism and growth-driven urban development. The paper presents the develop-
Keywords: ment of Kolonie Wedding in Berlin as an example of the promise and limitations of creative city initia-
Creative city
tives. Here, guided art walks were introduced to revitalize the local economy and property market and
Art walks
Urban entrepreneurialism
re-imagine the neighborhood as creative and lively. However, the initiative reinforces social and ethnical
Revitalization boundaries, enhances exclusion and advocates for gentrification instead of challenging these practices.
Gentrification The paper calls for an overhaul and revision of the creative city model in which equality, and not growth
Berlin and centrality, stand at its center. Such an approach includes the enactment of creativity not as an urban
development strategy but as a human right.
Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

The deceptive creative city
In recent years, much attention has been paid to the
development of creative cities by academics, planners,
developers and policy makers alike as an auspicious model
of urban development and prosperity among industrial de-
cline and global urban competition. The creative city prom-
ises urban vitality, distinctiveness, centrality, wealth
creation and above all conditions to ‘‘ride the wave of
change” for the benefit of the city (Landry, 2008: xvii).
But what kind of change, what benefits and for whose city
does this approach actually produce? Although the creative
city concept is advocated for in the name of ethical, just and
inclusionary urban development, in practice, this is often
not the case. Instead, the progressive potential of creative
city development tends to be shrunk down, reinterpreted
and enforced as ways to promote growth-driven urban
entrepreneurialism for the benefit of an urban elite. In
short: the result is no fundamental change but an extension
of more of the same.
⇑ Address: University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Department of Commu-
nication Studies, CB #3285, Bingham Hall, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3285, USA.
E-mail addresses: djakob@email.unc.edu, doreen.jakob@metropolitanstudies.de
This paper argues that the promise of the creative city
model lies in its promotion of the promise of creativity
and livability for all. The prevalent use of this model, how-
ever, is as a cynical rhetorical play for property-led and
amenity-oriented urban development, as well as a specta-
cle-driven governance of arts and culture and place produc-
tion and promotion. The paper illustrates this problem
through an analysis of Kolonie Wedding, an initiative orga-
nized with the goal of re-imaging, reorganizing and revital-
izing – via the promotion of arts and culture – the urban
environment of the Berlin neighborhood Wedding. Kolonie
Wedding was established in 2001 by a neighborhood man-
agement organization and a major real estate holder in an
area characterized by a mixture of industrial and residen-
tial buildings, high numbers of low-income and immigrant
population and empty and/or neglected properties. It is a
local network made up of a variety of individual artists
(predominantly visual and performing artists), arts organi-
zations and showrooms (private studios, galleries, theaters
and bars, cafes and restaurants regularly showcasing art
work). Its specific purpose is to produce two monthly
neighborhood art walks where visitors are personally
guided from one art-based event to another and thus are
encouraged to perceive and re-imagine the locale as crea-
tive. Art walks have become a new and pervasive practice

1877-9166/$ - see front matter Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.ccs.2011.01.005
194 D. Jakob / City, Culture and Society 1 (2010) 193–198
of urban redevelopment and creative city planning in cities
around the world yet there is not yet any detailed scholar-
ship on them.
This paper first provides a short assessment of the crea-
tive city model – its promises, practices and pitfalls. It then
provides examples of Berlin’s current creative city policies
and explores the developments, aims and goals of Kolonie
Wedding. Kolonie Wedding is singled out here not because
it is a singular initiative but rather because it exemplifies a
common way of transforming urban environments towards
a creative city and neighborhood respectively. However,
Kolonie Wedding does stand out due to its sustained and
desperate efforts to accomplish this task. The paper shows
how and why local stakeholders are pursuing these initia-
tives, explores their aspirations, actions, as well as the lim-
itations of their strategies. It concludes by arguing that this
creative city strategy introduced an urban entrepreneurial-
ism that instead of breaking down social and ethnical
boundaries reinforces exclusion and welcomes gentrifica-
tion. The paper thus calls for an overhaul and revision of
the creative city model in which equality and civic partici-
pation and not growth and centrality stand at its center,
including the enactment of creativity not as an urban
development strategy but as a human right.
Promises and reality of creative city making
The creative city characterizes a form and process of
urbanization in which creativity stands at the forefront.
Here, creativity refers to a process ‘‘by which a symbolic
domain in the culture is changed. New songs, new ideas,
new machines are what creativity is about” (Csikszentmih-
alyi, 1996: 8), thus, a creative city must consequently also
be a new city, a transformative shift from the existing
and conventional ways of profit driven urban development.
Hall (2000) attributes the transformational qualities of a
creative city to the presence of people who feel as outsiders
and are simultaneously included and excluded in the estab-
lished urban society. This sentiment is echoed by Florida
(2002) in his claim for tolerance as a main component of
a creative city. To actually induce change, however, these
outsiders must be allowed to communicate their ideas for
a new reality and find appropriate support. Consequently,
creative cities are ‘‘almost invariably uncomfortable, unsta-
ble cities, cities kicking over the traces” (Hall, 2000: 646).
More commonly though, the creative city is seen by
planners and policy-makers as a set of policy and planning
mechanisms that once applied, result in a creative city.
According to Landry the creative city ‘‘describes a new
method of strategic urban planning and examines how
people can think, plan and act creatively in the city. It ex-
plores how we can make our cities more liveable and vital
by harnessing people’s imagination and talent” (Landry,
2008: xii). But what does this promising claim exactly
mean and imply? Is the creative city an inauguration of
ethical, just and inclusionary urban development?
While Landry (2008) and Landry and Bianchini (1995)
provide a variety of practical examples and suggestions,
they are not ‘‘definite answers” but ‘‘idea banks” to inspire
answers to the question of: ‘‘What are the conditions my
city can create for people and institutions to think, plan
and act with imagination and ride the wave of change so
that it can benefit?” (Landry, 2008: xvii). The authors advo-
cate for a more holistic understanding of creativity that also
includes social and political reform in addition to artistic
and technological innovation. In practice, however, the real
‘‘creativity” of the creative city model tends to be its ability
to reframe and repackage an entrepreneurial model of ur-
ban governance and development geared towards attract-
ing highly mobile capital and professional elites with
environments to live and work in as well as to consume
and invest into that are lively yet safe, diverse yet con-
trolled, and artistic yet profit-driven (cf. Catungal, Leslie,
& Hii, 2009). The examples and descriptions of urban entre-
preneurialism provided by Harvey (1989) more than two
decades ago are in their essence no different from the more
contemporary policies and practices of creative city making
as, for instance, Evans (2003) shows. In other words, ‘‘the
reality is that city leaders [. . .] are embracing creativity
strategies not as alternatives to extant market-, consump-
tion- and property-led development strategies, but as
low-cost, feel-good complements to them. Creativity plans
do not disrupt these established approaches to urban
entrepreneurialism and consumption-oriented place pro-
motion, they extend them” (Peck, 2005: 761).
Contrary to the progressive claim of social and political
change for the betterment of all (Landry, 2008), the creative
city model tends to be enacted with a narrow focus on the
display and promotion of rather than the foundational sus-
tenance for arts and culture and technological innovation.
For instance, Pratt (2010) identifies four types of creative
city policies within the UK: innovation and network initia-
tives, cultural flagship developments, single event mega
projects, and social and cultural community engagement
practices. He finds that the majority of the policies favor
instrumentalist approaches to the production of culture
rather than their direct and intrinsic support. Moreover,
the political interest in the transformational qualities of
more inclusionary urban development is usually limited.
One example for this shortcoming is the development of
research and science parks, industrial clusters and incuba-
tors for new, innovative or creative industries. Although
there is an argument to be made that local production net-
works serve and foster new ways of organizing production
and labor and stimulate innovative thinking (cf. Scott,
2000), these new clusters are simultaneously offspring
and materializations of profit-driven economic develop-
ment policies and speculative growth by seeking capital
from venture capitalists (cf. Indergaard, 2004). Another
popular strategy of creative city development is the con-
struction of cultural amenities in forms of flagship muse-
ums, concert halls, cultural mega events and spectacular
city architecture. Again, these developments in and of
themselves are noble achievements if they serve the public
good and are universally accessible. Often, however, they
are rather exclusionary places and events of supervised
conspicuous consumption such as Potsdamer Platz and
the Sony Center in Berlin including the Berlinale film festi-
val hosted there that reinforce social boundaries instead of
overcoming them and are guided by profit-driven princi-
ples. Flagship developments like the Guggenheim Museum
in Bilbao tend to be mere investments into a hard infra-
structure that, once inaugurated, lack the long-term fund-
ing and sustenance of their cultural content (Evans, 2003;
 D. Jakob / City, Culture and Society 1 (2010) 193–198
Grodach, 2010). Festivals and mega events used as tools to
create urban attractions – a scheme that Häußermann and
Siebel call ‘‘festivalization of urban politics” – even erode,
according to the authors, the collective basis of democratic
politics via their combination of elite corporatism and pop-
ulism (Häußermann & Siebel, 1993). When urban develop-
ment policy is substituted by a creative city planning of
mega events and projects, ongoing urban problems of
inequality are politically marginalized further and deprive
just social and economical measures for housing, educa-
tion, welfare etc. of government resources.
As more and more city governments take on this ap-
proach and rebuild and revitalize their towns with similar
consumption-led approaches, architecture and festivals to
advance place-based experiences, their efforts lead not only
to a homogenization of the urban landscape but also
‘‘‘banalise’ our urban experiences” (Bianchini, 2004) and
undermine the very nature of the creative city they aim
to build. Instead of advancing towards a creative city of cre-
ativity and livability for all, the current urban development
schemes of a growth-driven production, promotion and
consumption of culture have counter-productive effects
that move further away from the ideal.
Constructing a creative Berlin
Berlin is well known for its creativity, especially as an
internationally renowned arts city. Past and recent innova-
tions in film, music, visual and performing arts have made
the city a global center of arts and culture. The city is home
to a cultural labor force of approximately 160,500 people
who are employed by more than 22,900 predominantly
small and medium sized companies generating over 17.5
billion Euros in revenue in 2006 (over 21% GDP)1. More
than 10% of all Berlin employees work in the different sectors
of the cultural industries (Senatsverwaltung für Wirtschaft
Arbeit und Frauen in Berlin, 2009). And as the popular phrase
by Berlin Mayor Wowereit ‘‘Berlin: arm, aber sexy” (poor,
but sexy) indicates, the city thrives on a relatively low cost
of living, combined with a lively nightlife and artistic scene
that continues to attract young people to visit and locate
there. Their cultural production and consumption changes
urban life and environments in Berlin much in the way Hall
(2000) describes the transformation outsiders can bring
about towards constructing a creative city from the reuse
of abandoned buildings to electronic dance parties in the
prestigious state opera.
Yet, the Berlin administration and its policies are ambiv-
alent towards such transformations. One the one hand, Ber-
lin Mayor Wowereit – who declared cultural affairs as a
‘‘Chefsache” (matter for the boss) and announced himself
as the new ‘‘Cultural Senator” moving the Department of
Cultural Affairs to the Mayor’s office in 2006 (Spiegel On-
line, 2006) – is the strongest advocate and promoter of
moving Berlin ‘‘into the international focus as a creative
metropolis” (Presse- und Informationsamt des Landes Ber-
lin, 2007). According to him, it is ‘‘the best that Berlin has to
1
For details on the specific definition of cultural industries used in this report as
well as the composition and calculation of these numbers see: Senatsverwaltung für
Wirtschaft Arbeit und Frauen in Berlin (2009) Kulturwirtschaft in Berlin. Entwickl-
ungen und Potenziale. Senatsverwaltung für Wirtschaft Arbeit und Frauen in Berlin,
Berlin.
195
offer, its unique creativity. Creativity is Berlin’s future”
(ibid.). Yet, simultaneously, he slashed the cultural budget
from 511 million in 2001 to 351 million Euros in 2007
(Deutsche Welle, 2007) while turning to the federal gov-
ernment for help with arts funding (e.g. Hauptstadtkultur-
fond) and the retaining of the cultural infrastructure (e.g.
the renovation of the museum island and the state opera).
Moreover, large parts of Berlin’s creative activities are
founded on the conditions of Zwischennutzung – the tem-
porary, in-between use of abandoned space for little to no
rent. As Florida finds, these ‘‘visual and audio cues such
as outdoor dining, active outdoor recreation, a thriving mu-
sic scene, active nightlife, and bustling street scene [are]
important attractants” (Florida, 2005: 99) for the ‘‘tal-
ented”. Yet, in Berlin, these grassroots and low-cost crea-
tive activities are usually welcomed only as long as there
is no more profitable use in sight. The Berlin administration
has often been ineffective in the struggle of creative organi-
zations to maintain their spaces or make room for new
high-end office, retail and condominium buildings as, for
example, the ongoing and most prominent conflict over
the Kunsthaus Tacheles shows (Kulish, 2010). Overall, the
Berlin government’s interest in creativity is strongly cen-
tered on marketing and promotion initiatives instead of
creative production and advocated for in the name of an
innovative support strategy, a ‘‘milestone for the creative
scene of the city” and a path to global creative city status
(Wowereit in: Presse- und Informationsamt des Landes
Berlin, 2007).
However, Zwischennutzung is still available in Berlin
neighborhoods that exhibit higher than average numbers of
low-wage and unemployed workers, lower education levels
and more unkempt properties and thus few available re-
sources. Here, arts and culture present a welcomed alterna-
tive to the more costly investments in jobs, education and
housing and the more difficult task of social and political
change. Eyeing the economic and social turnaround of now
gentrified (via arts and culture among other factors (Häußer-
mann, Holm, & Zunzer, 2002)) yet previously abandoned
peers like Mitte and Prenzlauer Berg in Berlin, many local pol-
iticians and stakeholders cannot resist but follow this path.
Berlin policy makers introduced ‘‘art walks” as a form of
showcasing local creativity and thus reimagining and revi-
talizing neighborhoods in 2001. Overall, art walks are walk-
ing tours that show visitors around a neighborhood from
one artistic event to another in an effort to experience
the creative ‘‘feel” of the area. Often referred to by their
date (Second Wednesdays, First Thursdays or Third Fridays
etc.), they are not isolated occurrence but rather a trend of
contemporary arts- and culture-led urbanization. Neigh-
borhood organizations in cities as diverse as Atlanta, Bir-
mingham, Jacksonville, Los Angeles, Seattle, Zurich are
pursuing very similar efforts. In fact, residents of and visi-
tors to the North Carolina Research Triangle (Raleigh-Dur-
ham-Chapel Hill) are able to experience them every
weekend: First Fridays in Raleigh, Second Fridays in Chapel
Hill/Carrboro, Third Fridays in Durham and Last Fridays in
nearby Hillsborough. Their goal is to provide a more en-
hanced experience of arts and culture via the collective
experience of several of such venues. But whether or not
such events actually contribute to the development of a
creative city is unproven.
196 D. Jakob / City, Culture and Society 1 (2010) 193–198
The first art walk in Berlin, ‘‘Zentrale Moabit,” in the Ber-
lin neighborhood of Moabit and organized by the local
neighborhood management organization, featured the dis-
play of artwork in windows and storefronts in combination
with guided walking tours. Its goal was the revitalization of
abandoned retail spaces. The project was financed with
public money but ended once those two years of funding
expired. However, it induced a development scheme of
entertaining art consumption for the re-imagination and
redevelopment of socially and economically disadvantaged
areas that has since been applied in nearly all Berlin neigh-
borhood revitalization plans.
Yet, similar to metropolitan policies, this kind of promo-
tion and support of arts and culture actually has little to do
with a genuine interest in artistic creativity and opportuni-
ties of creative expression for the local population but
rather a revitalization of underused properties. This dy-
namic was made clear by the manager of a former neigh-
borhood management organization in Berlin that
embraced arts-led revitalization:
Heaven knows we had no disposition for creativity. That
was for sure not the thought behind it. [. . .] We don’t do
that because we like artists so much. We don’t do art and
cultural support but we want to enliven those stores.
Because in those stores, that is totally clear, no one will
buy sugar and flour anymore (02/07).
Kolonie Wedding is a similar such initiative where
neighborhood-based organizations promote artistic crea-
tive activities to revitalize and re-imagine their locale by
organizing monthly ‘‘art walks.”
Kolonie Wedding
Kolonie Wedding was founded in 2001 by the Quartiers-
management (QM) Soldiner Kiez, a neighborhood manage-
ment organization in Berlin-Wedding appointed by the city
government to serve an area with ‘‘special development
needs” (Gebiete mit besonderem Entwicklungsbedarf) and
modeled after Zentrale Moabit. It was established as a
place-based network of project rooms that organizes
monthly arts event walking tours and through that redevel-
ops and re-imagines the neighborhood from a state of ne-
glect and abandonment to an area of creativity,
‘‘activities,” ‘‘life” and ‘‘ambience.”
The observation and analysis of Kolonie Wedding was
part of a larger study that investigated emerging place-
based creative industries networks in Berlin and New York
City and included 200 qualitative interviews with members
of the creative industries as well as local policy makers,
neighborhood organizations, real estate owners and devel-
opers and a 3-year participatory observation (2005–2007)
of four neighborhoods in Berlin and New York City (Fried-
richshain and Wedding in Berlin, Long Island City and the
South Bronx in New York City). All four case studies were
selected due to the recent development of numerous
place-based creative industries networks in the respective
neighborhoods including six different art walk initiatives
(for further details about the overall study, its findings
and methodology see Jakob (2009)). Kolonie Wedding is se-
lected here as a showing example due to the extensive
measures its organizers adopted to develop the network
and art walk respectively. Their activities highlight the urge
and trend to organize art walks as tools for the develop-
ment of a creative city.
Kolonie Wedding’s name originates from the location of
the QM on Kolonie Strasse. However, ‘‘Kolonie” (colony)
also connotes the colonizing aspect of the project. Accord-
ing to the director of the QM, ‘‘Kolonie Wedding is in prin-
ciple the heart of colonizing Wedding with culture. The
thought behind it was truly the settlement of Wedding”
(08/06). Hence, the name already points to the imperial as-
pects of the project. It developed along a multi-stage pro-
cess: First, the QM approached the major local real estate
holder DEGEWO, which agreed to provide its empty stores
at operating cost to Kolonie Wedding. Then, the QM di-
rectly urged artists to relocate to the area via the incentive
of cheap space or as the director of the QM explained: ‘‘At
the beginning, the idea of Kolonie Wedding was about ar-
tists coming here. Well, that’s nice. But where do you get
the artists from? Thus one went to the art schools and said:
‘Hello, we have space. What do you think?’” (08/06). Once
sixteen people had agreed to take up that offer, QM started
to formalize the network. It provided the name, designed a
logo, printed advertising and press material and inaugu-
rated the first walking tours. Here, the organization’s
employees went as far as calling every member in advance
to make sure that they all attended the monthly organiza-
tional meetings and prepared and offered new exhibitions
and events for each month’s tour. The regularity as well
as distinctiveness of each event, according to the director
of the QM, is essential to building a regular audience. Kolo-
nie Wedding participants are not, themselves, allowed to
exhibit for the same reason. Notably they are also prohib-
ited from selling any artwork. This restriction is due to
the agreement between the QM and DEGEWO that no com-
mercial enterprise should take advantage of the near-zero
rents. It also motivated the focus on artists in the revitaliza-
tion strategy instead of commercial galleries or other cul-
tural enterprises.
On the last Friday evening and Sunday morning of every
month, Kolonie Wedding organizes a widely advertised
‘Tour de Galerie’, where visitors are shown around the
now 32 different spaces. The activities include visual arts
exhibitions, new media and film, dance and theater perfor-
mances, music, poetry reading as well as occasional kara-
oke and sports competitions. And although the tours are
promoted as gallery walkabouts, QM, DEGEWO and Kolonie
Wedding artists alike are eager to point out the differences:
I just said ‘gallery,’ although we try to avoid the word
like the devil does the holy water. A gallery is a commer-
cial enterprise therefore we don’t have any galleries
here. We have ‘alternative projects’ and ‘exhibition
spaces.’ [. . .] And we also always strongly emphasize
that the artists here practice intense self-exploitation.
Because, to organize an exhibition every month, if you
want to do that well, is very time consuming. That often
means the artists don’t have enough time to develop
their own work (director QM, 08/06).
Hence, a major difference between Kolonie Wedding and
other art walks in cities like Toronto, Chicago, Portland or
 D. Jakob / City, Culture and Society 1 (2010) 193–198
Santa Fe (cf. Bain, 2006) is not only the direct attraction of
artists to the respective neighborhood but also its nature of
neither supporting the sustainability of such ‘‘gallery”
spaces via the sale of art work nor the production of art
due to the time-consuming constraints of exhibition orga-
nizing. Both reveal that the essential goal of the initiative
is not the development of local arts and culture but mere
arts-led neighborhood revitalization.
DEGEWO regards Kolonie Wedding as a ‘‘win–win” situ-
ation: The incurred operation costs of the former empty
stores are taken over by the artists, while their presence
influences the perception of the neighborhood and creates
amenities. Further, the artists’ presence casts the real estate
holder with the positive image of being a supporter of the
Berlin art scene (DEGEWO, 02/07). In reality though, DEGE-
WO is far from being supportive, but rather is very calculat-
ing in its efforts. There is a short notice period to empty the
stores, no collective contract and no actual bill of utility
costs, hence persistent rumors about overcharging (Kolonie
Wedding members, 2006–07). DEGEWO’s rhetoric is
deceptive. On the one hand, DEGEWO representatives talk
about the social responsibility of the major Berlin housing
association. On the other hand, the two interviewed DEGE-
WO representatives pointed out that their interest in Kolo-
nie Wedding is driven neither by social nor creative
motivations, but to initiate a change of image for the neigh-
borhood to increase real estate values. Their ultimate goal
is for Kolonie Wedding activities to ‘‘emanate into the
neighborhood and emanate to the outside of the neighbor-
hood,” to portray a ‘‘spirit of optimism” and to attract
wealthier residents, restaurants, and retail (09/07).
For the participating artists, the motivation to partici-
pate in Kolonie Wedding and its strict exhibition policies
is twofold. Artists are attracted both to the network due
to its low rents and to its ability to gather a much larger
audience as a group then any individual artists would be
able to. Although members have little in common beyond
their location, their collective goal is to establish the neigh-
borhood as a ‘‘major arts location in Berlin” (Kolonie Wed-
ding chairman, 07/07). This goal was iterated by the
director of the QM: ‘‘Kolonie Wedding has a name by
now in the art scene. [. . .] Although, it is not that one says
‘Wow, Kolonie Wedding similar to SoHo. You really have to
have been there.’ But at least one knows about it and has
heard of it” (08/06).
However, Kolonie Wedding is regarded as a ‘‘model of
success” not for its artistic achievements but because it cre-
ates positive attention, lures visitors, publicizes creativity
and liveliness and generates hope for gentrification. ‘‘There
is so much vacancy here. That is always the issue. In Mitte
it worked incredibly. Mitte is completely gentrified but
here? A little bit gentrification would be nice” (ibid.). Thus,
asked about gentrification and whether it is the final goal of
Kolonie Wedding, the QM manager answered: ‘‘Yes, of
course” (ibid.).
DEGEWO has found its own way of dealing with what
the interviewees called, an ‘‘unbalanced population.” DE-
GEWO’s press speaker said that the real estate holder will
not displace residents, but it will also not allow the mov-
ing in of people with low income or of foreign descent
into its holdings. Interested renters have to go through
an application processes and are specifically selected on
197
the basis of ‘‘mixture” (09/07). Apart from being extre-
mely ethnically and socially discriminatory, this process
underlines that the ultimate goal of DEGEWO is to criti-
cally enhance the value of its housing stock and acquire
control over its market by catering to the demand of a
culture-curios middle class and limiting supply to other
social groups.
Moreover, there is little to no interaction between
Kolonie Wedding artists and the local population apart
from few exceptions. As the artists see their participa-
tion in the art walks as a step towards metropolitan rec-
ognition and fame, direct involvement in local affairs is
rare. Nor are local residents particularly invited to par-
ticipate in such events. According to the interviewed
Kolonie Wedding artists, the large population of local
immigrant residents, often Turkish, has no perception
of and appreciation for art. Immigrants tend not to visit
the exhibition spaces and if so, then they are often
young people trying to vandalize. As Kolonie Wedding
artists usually do not live in the area but only come
there to organize their exhibitions, they are isolated
from the everyday life of the neighborhood. They have
created a separate and elite socio-spatial enclave for
themselves that is detached from the actual neighbor-
hood in which they are located. Thus, instead of break-
ing ethnic or social boundaries, Kolonie Wedding
actually reinforce exclusion.
None of these discriminatory and exclusionary methods
are compatible with the creative city model nor is there
anything new or transformative about them. Instead, they
are further expressions of an urban entrepreneurialism that
puts property and growth-driven development at its cen-
ter. They are developments that value public perception
and illusionary images of creativity over inclusion and
equality. They are not alternatives but extensions of the
current system of growth via the consumption of culture
and place. Kolonie Wedding stands as an example that re-
veals how creative city planning is being used to further
profits and status.
The creative neighborhood – but for all?
The creative city is, if true to the definition of creativity
(cf. Csikszentmihalyi, 1996), a new city. As a policy and
planning model, it advocates for a progressive change that
enables all city residents to be creative (Landry, 2008). It
promotes equality, livability and personal advancement
via harnessing people’s imagination and talent. However,
the example of Kolonie Wedding shows that the inaugura-
tion of art walks as a strategy to develop a creative neigh-
borhood can miss that goal. Change is proclaimed via the
introduction of new hope and optimism, new arts activities
and media and visitor interests. Yet the majority of the lo-
cal population is frequently excluded from these develop-
ments. And although none of the participating artists is
allowed to operate commercially, the final goal of the Kolo-
nie Wedding initiative is the development of a profitable
local property market.
Hall (2000) describes creative cities as locales where
outsiders – be they young, foreign, excluded or all of the
above – induce change via the communication of new ideas
and a support thereof. Therefore, the attraction of artists to
198
a specific locale in and of itself can be very fruitful for the
development of a creative city. Yet, without an interest in
and engagement with the local community – as is the case
with Kolonie Wedding – their ideas will not be heard nor
supported. As Pratt argues a ‘‘creative city cannot be
founded like a cathedral in the desert: it needs to be linked
to and be part of an existing cultural environment” (Pratt,
2008: 35). Top–down planning initiatives like Kolonie
Wedding fail to provide such a connection. Instead, they
confirm the boundaries between the socially excluded
and included.
Yet instead of fully dismissing the whole creative city
concept as well as arts led-urban development, why not
overhaul and revise it in a way that equality and partic-
ipation and not growth and centrality stand at its center?
Authors like Markusen and Schrock (2006), Markusen and
Gadwa (2010) and many others have repeatedly shown
the positive contributions artists can make to economic
and urban development as well as provided alternative
suggestions of how arts-led development can be imple-
mented in a sustainable and just way. For instance,
among the four policy categories identified by Pratt
(2010) – clusters, flagships, mega events and community
engagement – creative city policies need to advance their
community programs to overcome their dominance of
profit-driven development. Basic ideas could include: to
advance arts education, to move more artists into
schools, to invite local students and excluded residents
to show their artistic work at art walks, to organize pub-
lic creative workshops that transfer knowledge and en-
able excluded residents to be part of an artistic
community as well as learn new skills, to build a local
creative community from the bottom–up instead of
top–down approaches2. These activities would represent
a more inclusive and progressive approach to urban devel-
opment. As Catungal et al. conclude: ‘‘The failure of crea-
tive city initiatives to forge truly open and creative
spaces raises questions about how mutually supportive
relationships between art, culture and local communities
might be forged” (Catungal et al., 2009: 1111). Thus, more
research is needed that further analyzes the effects of cre-
ative city development strategies on a variety of spatial
scales and for all affected parties that not only extends
our understanding of the creative city but also provides
evidence of how its promises are being met. No true crea-
tive city will be possible until the enactment of creativity
is no longer solely seen as profitable urban development
but as a right and opportunity for everyone.
References
Bain, A. L. (2006). Resisting the creation of forgotten places: artistic production in
Toronto neighbourhoods. Canadian Geographer/Le Géographe canadien, 50,
417–431.
2
For further ideas and practices see e.g.: Center for an Urban Future (2002) The
Creative Engine: How Arts and Culture is Fueling Economic Growth in New York City
Neighborhoods. Center for an Urban Future, New York, Center for an Urban Future
(2010) Time to be creative. Center for an Urban Future, New York.
D. Jakob / City, Culture and Society 1 (2010) 193–198
Bianchini, F. (2004). A crisis in urban creativity? Reflections on the cultural impacts
of globalisation, and on the potential of urban cultural policies. In The age of the
city: The challenges for creative cites. Osaka.
Catungal, J. P., Leslie, D., & Hii, Y. (2009). Geographies of displacement in the
creative city: The case of liberty village, Toronto. Urban Studies, 46, 1095–1114.
Center for an Urban Future (2002). The creative engine: How arts and culture is fueling
economic growth in New York city neighborhoods. New York: Center for an Urban
Future.
Center for an Urban Future (2010). Time to be creative. New York: Center for an
Urban Future.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1996). In Creativity: Flow and the psychology of discovery and
invention. New York: Harper Collins Publishers.
Deutsche Welle (2007). Government gives helping hand to refurbish Berlin Opera.
Deutsche Welle.
Evans, G. (2003). Hard-branding the cultural city – from Prado to Prada.
International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 27, 417–440.
Florida, R. L. (2002). In The rise of the creative class: And how it’s transforming work,
leisure, community and everyday life. New York: Basic Books.
Florida, R. L. (2005). In Cities and the creative class. New York: Routledge.
Grodach, C. (2010). Beyond bilbao: rethinking flagship cultural development and
planning in three California cities. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 29,
353–366.
Hall, P. (2000). Creative cities and economic development. Urban studies, 37,
639–649.
Harvey, D. (1989). From managerialism to entrepreneurialism: The transformation
in urban governance in late capitalism. Geografiska annaler, 71, 3–17.
Häußermann, H., Holm, A., & Zunzer, D. (2002). Stadterneuerung in der Berliner
Republik: Modernisierung in Berlin-Prenzlauer Berg. Opladen: Leske + Budrich.
Häußermann, H., & Siebel, W. (1993). Die Politik der Festivalisierung und die
Festivalisierung der Politik. Große Ereignisse in der Stadtpolitik. In H.
Häussermann & W. Siebel (Eds.), Festivalisierung der Stadtpolitik:
Stadtentwicklung durch große Projekte Leviathan Sonderheft 13 (pp. 7–31).
Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.
Indergaard, M. (2004). Silicon alley: The rise and fall of a new media district. New
York: Routledge.
Jakob, D. (2009). Beyond creative production networks. In The development of intra-
metropolitan creative industries clusters in Berlin and New York City. Berlin:
Rhombos.
Kulish, N. (2010). Dressing artists’ hub in something button-down. In New York
Times. New York: New York Times.
Landry, C. (2008). In The creative city: A toolkit for urban innovators. London:
Comedia; Earthscan, New Stroud.
Landry, C., & Bianchini, F. (1995). In The creative city. London: Demos.
Markusen, A., & Gadwa, A. (2010). Arts and culture in urban or regional planning: A
review and research agenda. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 29,
379–391.
Markusen, A., & Schrock, G. (2006). The artistic dividend: Urban artistic
specialization and economic development implications. Urban Studies, 43,
1661–1686.
Peck, J. (2005). Struggling with the creative class. International Journal of Urban and
Regional Research, 29, 740–770.
Pratt, A. C. (2008). Creative cities? Urban Design, 106.
Pratt, A. C. (2010). Creative cities: Tensions within and between social, cultural and
economic development: A critical reading of the UK experience. City, Culture and
Society, 1, 13–20.
Presse- und Informationsamt des Landes Berlin (2007). Wowereit präsentierte den
‘‘Berlin Day” in New York. Berlin: Pressemitteilung, Presse- und Informationsamt
des Landes.
Scott, A. J. (2000). In The cultural economy of cities: Essays on the geography of image-
producing industries. London: SAGE, Thousand Oaks.
Senatsverwaltung für Wirtschaft Arbeit und Frauen in Berlin (2009).
Kulturwirtschaft in Berlin. Entwicklungen und Potenziale. Berlin:
Senatsverwaltung für Wirtschaft Arbeit und Frauen in Berlin.
Spiegel online (2006). Massive Kritik an Wowereits Kultur-Coup. Spiegel online.