Innovation as a Floating Signifier in Urban Governance: Discursive Struggles in Montreal’s Quartier des Spectacles

Abstract

Introduction: Innovation has become central in contemporary urban governance, often mobilized as a solution for economic restructuring, cultural development, and social inclusion. In cultural districts, it functions as a key organizing principle shaping policy rationales, governance arrangements, and urban imaginaries. This paper examines how innovation is articulated and deployed in the governance of Montreal’s Quartier des Spectacles (QdS), a flagship cultural development project.

Literature Review: While studies on creative cities and cultural quarters emphasize economic and symbolic aspects of innovation-led development, less attention has been paid to innovation as a discursive and political construct. This paper addresses this gap by conceptualizing innovation as a floating signifier embedded in struggles over meaning, legitimacy, and urban citizenship.

Research Method: A qualitative, interpretive approach grounded in discourse analysis is adopted. The empirical material includes strategic plans, urban planning documents, and economic development policies related to QdS, notably the Quartier des Spectacles Strategic Plan (2022–2026), the Special Planning Program – Quartier des Spectacles (2013), and Montreal’s Economic Development Strategy (2011–2017). Documents are analysed through a post-structuralist discourse theory lens.

Findings: Innovation functions as a central governance technology, structuring urban transformation while masking social antagonisms. Official narratives frame innovation as self-evident, inclusive, and universally beneficial, legitimizing particular forms of cultural production, participation, and visibility. Simultaneously, counter-discourses expose tensions such as cultural gentrification, selective inclusion, and marginalization of non-conforming cultural practices.

Theoretical and Practitioner Implications: Theoretically, the paper contributes to urban governance debates by showing innovation as a floating signifier maintained through social, political, and phantasmatic logics. Practically, the findings urge policymakers to critically reassess innovation-led cultural policies and adopt pluralistic, democratic approaches to cultural development.

Limitations: The study focuses on institutional discourse and policy documents, without ethnographic or interview-based data. Future research should incorporate perspectives of artists, residents, and community organizations directly impacted by innovation-driven governance.