Can creative cities be inclusive too? How do Dubai, Amsterdam and Toronto navigate the tensions between creativity and inclusiveness in their adoption of city brands and policy initiatives?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Creative cities tend to generate higher levels of innovation and economic growth as well as be vibrant places to live. Many cities in the world have adopted the creative city label to realise these benefits. It is not certain, and in fact disputed by authors such as Richard Florida (2017) , that creative cities will also show high levels of inclusion. Inclusiveness is a multi-dimensional concept that needs to be unbundled before its connection with creativity is firmly established. Various tensions can arise when cities decide to adopt both creative city and inclusive city branding and urban policy initiatives. This paper studies these tensions in formulating responses to two main questions: A) How can the concepts ‘creative city’ and ‘inclusive city’ be operationalised, measured, and related to each other? and B) How do cities that adopt these two city labels implement them in their city branding and policy initiatives? What can we say about the internal consistency of these brands and policies? We have chosen Dubai, Amsterdam, and Toronto as case studies since all three enjoy good reputations in both creativity and inclusion in their respective continents and contexts. Our study indicates that cities promise more than they deliver, that creativity matches some aspects of inclusion, but contradicts others. Moreover, in case of tension, creativity always prevails over inclusion, whereby economic interests come first, and only aspects of inclusion that add to or are at least not in conflict with creativity tend to be honoured. Finally, in each of the three cities, the ‘couleur locale’ can clearly be observed in terms of the aspects of inclusion that are emphasised, and which tend to be disregarded.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.022 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".