When Richard Florida, the peripatetic celebrity academic from George Mason University, was in Australia to promote The Rise of the Creative Class (2002), he described Sydney as one of a dynamic new generation of cities that is attracting global talent. The following year, as a guest of the Melbourne Fashion Festival, he included Melbourne with Helsinki, Stockholm and Minneapolis–St Paul as models of creative and inclusive societies. On a later visit to New Zealand, he observed that the Lord of the Rings movies catalysed a new technology and entertainment industry for Wellington, earning it the reputation as a creative city. Is there a pattern here?

As explained in his bestseller, Florida’s ‘creative class’ is made up of ‘technological creatives’ in research and development, ‘cultural creatives’ in film, music, entertainment and architecture, and people in ‘knowledge jobs’ such as law, finance and health care. Enticed by the three Ts of economic development – technology, talent, and tolerance – the creative class builds community spirit, attracts new investment and drives local economies. Predictably, his ideas had immediate appeal. How could Americans, especially those who see themselves as members of the creative class, not like a man who says that diversity, tolerance and a vibrant cultural life are the ingredients of the country’s economic success? How could they dismiss someone who claims that how we live matters – that vibrant street life, outdoor recreation and a music scene are important in choosing a place to live?