Creativity: The Fuel in our Engine
Guest Author
Chris Coleman is the Artistic Director of Portland Center Stage. He delivered this speech at Northwest Business for Culture & the Arts' annual Arts Breakfast of Champions on November 4, 2005. Download his speech (PDF) here.
One of my favorite past times since moving to Portland has been reading about the city’s history. This might come as a surprise to my friends back in Atlanta, because during the 27 years I lived there, I don’t think I ever cracked a book about my hometown’s history.
My favorite discovery of late is the fact that in 1850, a year prior to Portland’s founding, there were 821 residents; 2/3 of whom were male; 90 percent of which were in their 20’s. If you consider this carefully, it becomes much less difficult to understand why today, the Oregon Supreme Court places such a high premium on the basic rights of strip club owners.
In 1886, Portland was first connected to the transcontinental railroad; and the following year, 1887, the first bridge spanned the Willamette (the Morrison Bridge) and the city’s first theatre was constructed.
By the year 1900, fifty years after the city’s founding, Oregon was the second largest producer of timber in the country, and enough wealth and ambition had coalesced in the region to make hosting the World’s Fair seem a viable proposition.
The Lewis & Clark Exposition occurred in the summer of 1905, shining the international spotlight on the city, and resulting in a burst of economic expansion that continued right up until the Great Depression. Many new industries emerged, many fortunes were built, and, until the mid 70s, timber was the unrivalled engine of this region’s economy.
By now, I know you are thinking, “I am listening to some theatre guy from Georgia teach me about Portland History. Did I get off on the wrong bus?” But stick with me.
I am no expert on either Portland or economics, but what I do understand is narrative: how stories are built, how they fit together and how you discover what is at their core.
I would argue that there currently exists a profound disconnect between the story we collectively carry around in our heads to describe who Portland is – and the reality of who we are actually becoming. And I would add that the task of reframing this story holds the key to both our economic and cultural future.
Two Snapshots:
Number one.
I am sitting in the CEO’s office of a local construction company. I ask, “How has this city changed most since you grew up here?” He casts his glance out the expansive window beside us and thinks for several moments.
“You see those buildings out there? The vast majority of them were built by companies that once had their headquarters in this city. Most of those companies are gone.” I ask, “Why were they here? What was the magnet?” He says: “the timber industry.”
You’ve heard the story before. You wouldn’t have to walk across the room to find someone who would be willing to tell it today. This is the story many people still carry around in their heads about what is driving (or not driving) our economy. The timber industry imploded, headquarters left and we will never recover.
Snapshot Two:
Joe Cortright, our eminent local economist, is addressing a group of leaders from the Biotech Industry. In the middle of his powerpoint presentation, he flashes a slide onto the screen.
On the slide is a picture of the universe. Not just any picture of the universe, but a picture of the high tech universe in Portland. The slide features two dominant orbs juxtaposed against each other in the heavens: one says “Tektronix”, the other says “Intel”. Then circling around each of these giant stars, are hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of planets, moons, and asteroids – with the names of high tech companies who were birthed in response to, or by talent emerging from Tektronix or Intel.
Two pictures of Portland: Which expresses the truth? That’s what we’re all trying to figure out, isn’t it?
Commissioner Sam Adams recently spent a chunk of time traveling around the city talking to businesses about what they needed to succeed. I’m so happy I didn’t have to go with him. Can you imagine? A government official asks a business person how to make the city better, and he’s going to start hearing about the tax burden, and regulations, and permitting. How depressing. I mean, has anyone ever actually met a business person who thought his tax burden was reasonable? It’s a dead-end conversation.
But I’d be interested to see what would happen if you changed the question and asked: “how are creativity and innovation fueling your business?” I’ve tried this one out a few times, and rather than leading to a dead-end, the answers open up an astonishing universe of possibility, imagination and profitability.
You find surprising answers in every industry: it is not just the brilliant footwear designer at NIKE who relies on her creativity to differentiate in the marketplace. It is also the computer engineer at AMI who is making a more reliable pacemaker; it is the graphic designer at Lancair, who is figuring out how to make small planes both faster and cooler to look at; it is the environmental specialist at Glumac who is figuring out how to build a condo that only spends $18 a year on energy; it is the marketing person at Widmer Brothers who is creating a new distribution system for beer; it is the mechanical engineer at Freightliner who makes it possible to custom design more trucks than any company in North America; it is the executive at Wieden & Kennedy who is launching a record label to connect local talent to a larger marketplace; and yes, in the timber industry, it is the chemist at Columbia Forest Products, who is figuring out how to make a non-toxic particle board by harnessing the adhesive properties of Oregon Mussels (that’s my favorite).
If you ask Duncan Wyse at the Oregon Business Plan, he will tell you flat out that the local companies competing most effectively in the global marketplace are those innovating at the leading edge of their industry. Now you might say, “Well I don’t care about competing in the global marketplace,” and I would reply: “Yes, you do.” Not perhaps for your own enterprise – but the horses drawing our economy are largely traded sector companies (those that produce goods and services in Oregon and sell them elsewhere). If those companies are not competing aggressively at the global level, then the rest of us are riding in a car without any gas.
So we are searching for the narrative thread, the story of who Portland is becoming – and two words seem to rising to the surface: creativity and innovation. And it is not just about making things cooler, or more fun. It is not just about zany cows on the sidewalk, or singing Lions, or martinis of various hues (all of which I love).
Snapshot Three:
This time I’m at lunch with executives from M Financial Corp, an Executive Benefits Firm, and Gerding/Edlen, a Real Estate Developer. I ask them both to talk about what had fuelled their success. They speak of their ability to innovate at the front of their industry. I ask what enabled them to innovate. They both reply with slightly different words: “We hire geniuses.”
Talent. They hire the most talented, creative people in their field (whether the need is for a construction project manager, or an actuarial scientist) – and set them to work on a problem. THIS is the key as I see it. Attracting and retaining high level talent is the key to creating profitability and success for both an individual business and a region in today’s economy.
Now, if this thought is starting to sound familiar, it’s probably because it has begun to find its way into conversations around the country, due to the writing of Richard Florida. Until very recently, Florida taught at my alma mater, Carnegie Mellon University, and began his research with the question: “Why is everyone leaving Pittsburgh?” (If you’ve ever lived there, it wouldn’t take a study to come up with an answer, but let’s be generous). In 1900, Pittsburgh was the 6th largest city in the U.S. and steel had made it one of the wealthiest cities in the world. But over the past thirty years, it has consistently lost both population and economic traction.
He studied what was driving regional economic performance and published his findings in a book entitled “The Rise of the Creative Class”. He first defined the “Creative Class” as people who add value to the economy by thinking; and then, the “Super Creative Class” – as people who add value to the economy by creating a new way to do something. In the year 1900, by Florida’s estimation, 3% of the American workforce could have been said to belong to the “Creative Class”. In 2001, that number was 33%, and was responsible for generating more than half of all American wages.
He discovered several basic factors that seemed to contribute to a region’s success in this model: 1) density of high tech companies; 2) density of Creative Class workers; 3) density of Bohemians; and 4) visible tolerance.
The basic theory he drew from his findings was that economic success was no longer driven by which companies were in a particular region, but by which TALENT could be attracted to and retained in that region. So, if you jump back to the conclusion we heard earlier from M Financial and Gerding/Edlen (“We hire geniuses”) – a relationship starts to emerge.
And what seems to attract this level of talent to a given place? Many different things – but at the top of Florida’s list are a few key factors: a) density of knowledge workers (“if I go work for Intel and they dump me, are there enough other opportunities in this place so that I can get work; or are their other creative people around so I can set out on my own if I need to?”); b) tolerance (is this a place where new ideas are welcomed; where you are encouraged to experiment; where diversity is celebrated and where someone like me will fit in?); and c) artistic stimulation (is this a fun, interesting place to live?). It was no accident that every city that made the top of Florida’s economic list also had thriving cultural scenes.
Think about it for a second: you are recruiting a ‘genius’ computer whiz at the top of her field. She can choose to work anywhere in the world. Money is an incentive, but she is going to weigh many factors, one of the most important being how interesting, how stimulating the place is to live in. Do her recreational, intellectual, and cultural options stack up against Austin, Denver, Toronto, London, Shanghai? Florida’s measurement of the “bohemian index” (how many artists, writers, dancers, filmmakers, actors, etc. are living in a city) is a direct barometer of how culturally interesting a place might be to live in. And in his interviews with members of the creative class, the desire to live in a community with a vibrant cultural scene, from the Symphony to the street, was critical.
But the value of the cultural scene actually extends a step further in this model. If your job depends on your ability to create a new way of doing something, then you need the intuitive and intellectual materials with which to accomplish that job. One aspect of your work will be gathering tons and tons of data, defining your goal, selecting creative partners, and chewing on the problem at hand. Then you hit what is known in the creative process as “the point of saturation”. You’ve taken in as much information as you can digest.
And at that moment, you have to let the problem sit in the oven for a while. And you seek (consciously or unconsciously) external distraction or stimulation that might spark the intuitive leap required to deliver your brilliant solution. You go to an art gallery, you ride your bike, you listen to a concert, you watch a movie, you go rockclimbing, you see a ballet. And the themes from the latest Decembrists concert ends up in a new ad campaign at Wieden & Kennedy, or the imagery at Elizabeth Leach Gallery surfaces in the design of a new condo tower.
The Creative Worker wants a creative city because it is more interesting to live in; and he needs a creative city because the stimulation it affords is required in order to perform at his peak.
So the equation looks like this: a company’s ability to differentiate and compete in today’s marketplace is increasingly driven by their ability to innovate; innovation is driven by a high level of talent; that talent is attracted first to the PLACE, then to the JOB.
What do we do with this information? Statistically, Portland is doing a pretty good job of attracting talent. But are we able to attract and retain the level of talent that will allow us to stay competitive? Once the talent is here, what are the obstacles that stand in the way of their success? How do you make certain that the next Kristy Edmund, or the next Phil Knight are connecting to the level of capital needed to transform their brilliant idea into an enterprise? What are we doing to identify and fortify the excellence already living in our midst? And how are we building an educational system that arms our kids with the creative problem solving skills they will need to compete for jobs? Those are a few of the questions we should be asking.
And those of us in the “arts community” need to change the lenses on our glasses. Instead of asking, “How can we get business to more generously support the Arts?” we need to ask instead, “What kind of investment could we collectively make to transform this city into one of the most creative communities on the planet?” We should be looking at every single way we can identify, foster and celebrate creativity whether in the rehearsal hall at BodyVox, or the research lab at OHSU.
*
The Rise of the Creative Class was reprinted in paperback form in 2004, and I was struck by how Portland ranked on Florida’s overall “Creativity Index” (the amalgam he uses to define a region’s overall readiness to compete today). In the 2001 statistics, Portland ranked 16th overall. Not half bad. But in the 2004 version, we ranked 6th.
What this says to me, is that if you believe any of this guy’s research, then many of the advantages a community needs to thrive economically are already here, alive and kicking. And our job as leaders is to look in the right direction, seek out the connective tissue, remove the obstacles, connect talent to capital – and most critically – to reframe the story of who Portland is becoming.
Posted by Guest Author on November 8, 2005
(6) Comments | Permalink | TrackBack (0)
Filed Under Arts & Culture, Front Page, Jobs & Economy, Speeches & Testimony
Comments by site visitors
Chris,
where can I get a copy of your comments, either as Word file or printed, 8.5x11?
The folks in the River Renaissance North Reach study need to read and reflect on your insights.
Thanks again.
Posted by: Lenny Anderson | Nov 16, 2005 10:45:18 AM
Lenny,
I updated the post with a link to a PDF of the speech.
Posted by: Jesse | Nov 17, 2005 11:55:33 AM
Chris - If you look at most of the industrial growth and innovation, how would you contrast Europe (or your creative center of choice) vs. China/SEAsia?
It is nice that we have a lot of designers working at Nike, but they are swamped by the number of people who work in manufacture/distribution of Nike shoes.
In sum, creativity is nice, but manufacturing is what creates the jobs.
Posted by: Steve | Nov 17, 2005 3:42:05 PM
Steve, yea, that's working out really good for us -- ignore innovation and rely on jobs that are leaving the city for China and India. Tim
Posted by: Tim Johnson | Nov 17, 2005 8:30:14 PM
Creativity is NICE, BUT...?!?!
As local economist Joe Cortright points out, the manufacturing jobs that are worth holding on to have huge creative content in them. Most of the folks who work at Intel (a manufacturing firm) are involved in a very creative activity. So, too, are a large fraction of the workers at places like Freightliner and Precision Castparts. Success in manufacturing, particularly in a high wage developed country, hinges on tapping the creativity of ALL of a company's workers.
Yes, there are more people in China (and Vietnam) sewing Nike shoes than there are in Beaverton designing them. But do we really want 90 cent an hour manufacturing jobs in Oregon?
Posted by: Jeff Hawthorne | Nov 18, 2005 1:21:44 PM
Post your comment
Please note: your email address, although required to post, will not be visible. We remove inappropriate or offensive content, and content deemed improper by State and City election and ethics law. The comments posted do not necessarily reflect the views of the office or the City of Portland.
Chris,
Thanks for your excellent piece. I hope you can get it published more broadly in the local press, etc.
I worked almost 30 years in the printing and paper industry...value added manufacturing...and your emphasis on talent & creativity are right on the mark. Without skilled operators and innovative engineers these industries would die out around here. Talent is key, especially in manufacturing.
Transportation is really a secondary issue. Portland led the way in the 70's by shifting transportation dollars from freeways (that destroy neighborhoods) to transit (that builds communities). In the 21st century Portland can lead the way again by shifting our "infrastructure" investments away from transportation hardware (the Columbia River Crossing) to investments in "software,"... education, research, and the arts.
Creating and attracting talent is our region's ticket for the future.
Posted by: Lenny Anderson | Nov 9, 2005 9:13:28 AM