A variety of policy recommendations from research conducted by both London and Toronto suggested the need for local government to actively participate in facilitating networks within sectors. Effective manifestations of this were identified in both cities and were able to provide evidence of policy intentions leading to positive practical outcomes. The importance of encouraging this kind of ‘connective tissue’ was linked with a number of desired consequences. Firstly, it is said to help organize the economy, allowing new sectors to emerge quickly, while more established sectors will be helped to be more adaptable.[1] It also produced a level of social cohesion, engendering a sense of belonging among the members of the arts community and a shared purpose.[2] The goal in developing these networks was to build the capacity of the sector and enable more effective communication between its members. As well as strengthening intra-community links, it also hoped to improve connections across industry sectors outside of the arts and with shared governance partners.[3] In Toronto, local government plays a key role in supporting the organisation of Spadina Bus. The organisation represents over 2,000 creative workers in Toronto’s e-industries and is responsible for organising multiple events in which the community can network with each other and share resources. [4] For an industry sector which is typically dominated by freelance project-based work, the organisation plays an essential role in facilitating the circulation of knowledge locally. [5]
The Greater London Authority is very clear about its role as a facilitator of networking amongst sectors in the arts. Its goals are to coordinate groups and guide them according to the research and strategies it has developed, in order to produce the most effective outcomes for those groups.[6] It acts as a gatherer of information for the sector, listening to the needs of various parties, drawing together and coordinating a range of initiatives in order to avoid the waste of duplication.[7] London policies indicate the need for further development of a co-ordinated approach and ‘a single voice for culture in London’. [8] These kinds of proposals culminated in the creation of the London Cultural Consortium, which is a body with a strong voice that lobbies on behalf of the arts; advocating and promoting its cultural assets, nationally as well as regionally.[9] It connects cultural and creative industries and supports public as well as private members of the sector and not-for-profit partnerships.[10] A final measure to develop connectivity can be seen in the effort to allow space for cultural ‘hubs’.[11] These are geographical concentrations of interconnected individuals and organisations involved in the arts.[12] Their effective development produces a type of creative milieu within parts of the city, attracting further members to the network and encouraging growth.[13]
Page 9 of 11
[1] City of Toronto (2007). Cluster Overview. Toronto. p. 12
[2] AuthentiCity, p. 24
[3] Ibid., p. 30
[4] Gertler, p. 9
[5] Ibid.
[6] Greater London Authority (2008). p. 23
[7] Ibid., p. 11-14
[8] Greater London Authority (2004). p. 22-23
[9] Ibid., p. 8-9
[10] AuthentiCity, p. 27
[11] Greater London Authority (2004). p. 16 – 17
[12] Toronto Mayor’s Economic Competitiveness Advisory Committee, p. 43
[13] Ibid.