p.p1 speed from an industrial economy to an informational

p.p1 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px ‘Times New Roman’; -webkit-text-stroke: #000000}
span.s1 {font-kerning: none}
span.Apple-tab-span {white-space:pre}

The creative city is a place which creates conditions where people can think, plan and act with imagination (Landry,2015). It provides people with the circumstances in which they themselves and together as a community can flourish. In the last decades nations and cities have passed at extraordinary speed from an industrial economy to an informational economy and from that gradually to a cultural economy (Hall, 2000). Symposia, conferences, workshops, festivals, prestigious sports and cultural events are now the way cities can shape and redesign themselves (Landry & Bianchini, 1995). The local citizens can benefit by it, however cities should be mindful to not forget their local history, traditions and most importantly their own citizens. This essay revolves around the question of how a creative city can maximize their conditions in order to provide a beneficial and nourishing environment for its local population and how to get them actively involved in co-creating the creative city. In order to come to a satisfactory conclusion, this essay will focus on who the infrastructure has shaped the cities and how it is now under going changes. After that, the importance of public social spaces and how they are vital in keeping the city a livable one. Lastly the influence of social housing and social cohesion on the sustainability of the creative city will be up for discussion. 
Infrastructure 
For the longest time cities have revolved around a more practical industrial economy and city planners planned accordingly. Cities became increasingly car decent and started to dictate how the city was laid out (Nieuwenhuijsen & Khreis, 2016). Because the car was getting more and more accessible cities were beginning to structurally design arias with a certain goals: Work areas, school areas, living neighborhoods etc in the name of convenience (Montgomery, 2014). It made for largely symmetrical cities that started to look all quite indistinguishable. Yet over the years cities have gradually started to rethink the ‘car depended’ structures and cities from all over the world increasingly interested in the possibility of having a car free city (Nieuwenhuijsen & Khreis, 2016).
There are some good arguments to be made in favor of car free cities. First cars, and everything to do with them, contributes to the three key environmental problems of the day: Air pollution, noise, and local temperature rises (Nieuwenhuijsen & Khreis, 2016). The second one would be health related, since being constantly exposed to exhaust gases has its effects on the human body. Reducing motorized traffic will likely be beneficial for the public health in the short- and longterm (Nieuwenhuijsen & Khreis, 2016). Furthermore Nieuwenhuijsen & Khreis argue that cars, roads and parking spaces use up a large amount of the limited space in cities that could be used to facilitate other purposes like parks, greenery, and housing. A study shows that cars, roads and land required for parking consume over 70% of down town land in some American cities (Crawford, 2002). Finally there is evidence that cars average speed within the city is around the same as public transport systems (Nieuwenhuijsen & Khreis, 2016). Making public transport the better, cleaner and healthier option.
Multiple ideas are in place with the aim of educing motorized traffic that include: implementing car free days, investing in cycling infrastructure and pedestrianization, restricting parking space and considerable increases in public transport provision (Cathkart-Keays,2015). A good example is the building of the ring-roads/highways under the city, like they have done in the city of Maastricht (NOS,2016 ), so that multiple parts of the city can be connected to each other creating space for public parks, extra housing (Landry & Bianchini, 1995). Another examples are the bike lanes build in places like Scandinavia and the Netherlands (Nieuwenhuijsen & Khreis, 2016) and city centers closing the shopping streets to cars, at the great dismay of the shopkeepers who believed that would ruin their businesses (Landry & Bianchini, 1995). Yet the opposite occurred, the now pedestrian streets generated a more customers and increased their property value (Landry & Bianchini, 1995). The city Groningen (the Netherlands) is a good example of a walkable city where the pedestrians are king.
Public social spaces. 
Restricting motorized traffic within the (inner) city can leave the city with a lot of new space to develop new houses and vernacular urban spaces.Vernacular urban spaces, like pedestrian streets, parks and other open public spaces, are crucial for the ever ongoing social interactions by which cultural heritage is produced( Zukin, 2012 , Landry & Bianchini, 1995). Especially creating parks and greenery spaced out over the city reduces claustrophobia and bring some much needed ‘air’ within the crowded city (Landry & Bianchini, 1995). A good example would be Central Park in New York or the plazas spaced out over the entire city of Florence. Parks provide a little haven of peach and social interactions, like sports, picknicks or just casual strolls, whilst being beneficiary for your physical and mental health (Coles,2016). 
Shopping streets in the city can be also be seen as one of those vernacular spaces in that they: mobilize powerful ecstatic themes that resonate with the tastes/desires of the local population and they shape a collective memory (Zukin, 2012). Shopping streets, that are not filled with international chains, shape the way one views that particular neighborhood. It being an ethnic orientated or a more native neighborhood they have something unique. Because of their longitivtiy, some stores might have been there for decades like the Utrechtsestraat (in Amsterdam) for example, they help preserve the ‘spirit’ of social groups whose customs, traditions and skills are marginalized by modern, cosmopolitain, society (Vecco, 2010). 
Social housing and cohesion
Where at first the industrial city created a ‘pull’ for the low-income workers and a ‘push’ for the well to do to the suburbs, there is now a ‘pull’ for the well to do for the urban lifestyle (Bhatta, 2010).Since the city becomes more and more preferable/gentrified, higher-income groups gradually migrate into urban settings (Van Kempen & Van Weesep, 1994). Creating a housing scarcity and raise the rent prices up. Because of the scarcity middle-income and high-income groups startling in the slightly undesirable, yet central, neighborhoods and with the help of artists and creative professionals gradually start to gentrify the neighborhood. During a policy experiment in Belgium cities promoted gentrification with the idea of social mixing (Loopmans,2008).  Yet the experiment failed due to unclear policies.Gentrification of attractive, but poor, neighborhoods only creates the short time illusion social mixing. Uitermark and Loopmans are of the opinion that in the long run gentrification of that same neighborhood will reinforce the segregation between the low-income groups and the middle/high-income groups. Eventually rents become to high and the low-income or even the middle-income has to migrate to a different neighborhood leaving only a homogenous community high-income groups. 
With that happening a city can face the problem of :social fragmentation, alienation, dissatisfaction and diminishing sense of belonging and identity(Landry & Bianchini, 1995). Landry and Bianchini argue that it is important to create a sense of community by getting the people involved in certain projects and by giving them a say when it comes to city and neighborhoods policies. They argue that it is in the cities best interest to strike a balance between cosmopolitain and local roots. If the scale where to heavily favor the local roots towards it risks stagnation of economic process and (inter)national recognition and status ,where if one puts too much emphasis on the other, the city might lose confidence and sense of direction (Landry & Bianchini, 1995).
A creative city cannot excel when it only has a homogenous community to work with, since one of the key ingredients of creativity is a diverse milieu (Hall, 2000). It needs people from all walks of life to share ideas, traditions. So how does one stop a neighborhood or an entire city to become to homogenous. Well, one way of doing so is to provide social housing throughout the entire city as to avoid total segregation. Good housing policies, that concentrate on reducing the rent gap between the different income groups, can reduce direct and exclusionary displacements of certain groups through rent regulations and the extension/promotion of social housing (Uitermark & Loopmans, 2013). Uitermark and Loopmans argue that by doing so they can stop the degradation of less attractive neighborhoods whilst keeping the more attractive neighborhoods from becoming too homogenous as the result of gentrification.
Conclusion 
So how does one maximize the cities conditions in order to provide a beneficial and nourishing environment for its local population? By rethinking and reorganizing a cities infrastructure, one can change the feel of the city considerably. By reducing motorized traffic and instead investing in public transport, bike lanes and pedestrian side walks a city can create a healthier environment for its citizens. By providing many green parks and other public spaces, one creates spaces where there is room to socialize and interact with on and other. To come together and share as a community. 
How to get them actively involved in co-creating the creative city? In order to get the local population involved is by ensuring they have ties to the community, by creating a sense of belonging trough the preservation local shopping street and fair housing policies that ensure a mixed population within the neighborhood. This not only keeps the city accessible for all, it also safeguards the cities from segregation. And finally the important task is to get the locals involved in projects in their neighborhoods and giving them a say in the development of the city, because participation creates a feeling of pride and belonging . It generates that what Landry, (2015) say’s in his Ted Talk : It creates a community of co-production making it the ideal environment for the growth of a creative city. 

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now