Just as many of the critics in the Times are arguing that force-fitting a cultural district on downtown will be a bigger and badder version of the Lincoln Center, Alan Gerson is stumping hard for that very effort. This week, he released a map to accompany a report issued earlier in the year that outlines a proposal for cohering the major existing nodes of arts activity into an over-arching ‘cultural district’ that will also encourage relocation of many organizations and artists much further downtown.
His thesis is that ‘The Arts’ are a significant contributor to the economic well being of the New York area, and, as such, should receive public investment and assistance. Declaring them the last remaining smokestack industry in New York seems to be a strategy intended to prompt massive reinvestment. This reflects a poor understanding of the city’s economic history, and offers no leverage for adapting existing or historical development schemes. The city did next to nothing to discourage the dismantling of manufacturing in the city, but, more so, what is the corollary? Relocation of Julliard to Taiwan? If anything, the ‘arts community’ is highly fractured (and fractious), not ‘vertically-integrated.’ They do make the point that many artists are relocating to cities that are more ‘artist-friendly,’ such as Portland, Oregon. My limited experience is anyone interested in the arts who moves to a smaller metropolitan area is already established and seeking alternatives New York cannot offer (geography, a differing attitude about regional cultural production, etc.), or simply failing to make a dent in their respective career and looking for a lower threshold of accomplishment.
And even in the cases where the city actively supports industry, it is mostly in the form of tax abatement and PILOT (Payments In Lieu of Taxes) agreements. Very little direct subsidy occurs. Arts organizations already receive tax breaks that exceed those offered to private enterprise (though they do offer some interesting ideas, such as abatement pass-thrus to landlords that rent to arts organizations), so the city has little developmental ammunition to deliver, excepting direct grants.
By declaring downtown as a viable arts district worthy of direct and indirect subsidy immediately after providing a succinct synopsis of the arts district to gentrification cycle (“Again and again we see the cycle — artists move into a blighted or under-utilized neighborhood. Eventually, the neighborhood becomes a ‘destination.’ The real estate booms. The artists and arts organizations, including the ones that had been there for decades, are driven out by the new market rents. Some organizations go under. The others limp to a new blighted neighborhood and begin again, diminished. The newly revitalized neighborhood they left behind somehow ‘loses its luster,’ leaving perfectly serviceable luxury residential areas with no discernible character.”) colors the entire program as real estate subsidy for the black sheep of middle-class families everywhere. You know the profile: Child One inherits the business, Child Two becomes a high-earning professional, and Child Three becomes a… filmmaker.
Promoting ownership of facilities for arts organizations is fine idea. Encouraging artists to own their space is good advice. But when even the most underdeveloped section of Manhattan south of 125th Street will still fetch north of $400/sq ft, it will be near impossible to structure a program that acquires property outright or encourages owners to participate in discount or stabilized rent relationships. And no one who has come of age as an artist in the past generation is ignorant of this cycle. Deciding where to be an artist is as much an act of real estate speculation as it is an expressive act.
Gerson’s map is a step towards codifying planning development that could have a beneficial effect on arts organizations, and should be embraced enthusiastically, but not for the benefit of downtown, but as the first step of building an infrastructure that supports the arts on the order of Paris or Berlin.
As for the artists, they should go live in the South Bronx. For the city to be visionary about where the army of cultural producers can perch, it has to be off Manhattan: Long Island City, Astoria, the Bronx, and beyond. This is where housing/zoning programs need to be focused. They need to be combined with programs that encourage home ownership by the existing population, and to integrate disparate cultures, not simply displace them. Everyone applies the veneer of SoHo and TriBeCa as they exist today to what any ‘artist housing’ program should look like. But the genesis was much different (a friend who was pioneer was fascinated to read that Gordon Matta-Clark’s Food held various art happenings late in the evening; she used to go there because it was the only restaurant around). There are a number of neighborhoods that are viable for creative and equitable reinvestment. An artists enclave has never arisen in a mature real estate district, and the cost to force one on downtown will lead to an even faster dissolution of non-mainstream arts organizations.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.
The only thing missing from downtown: downtown chic.
Just as many of the critics in the Times are arguing that force-fitting a cultural district on downtown will be a bigger and badder version of the Lincoln Center, Alan Gerson is stumping hard for that very effort. This week, he
released a map to accompany a report issued earlier in the year that outlines a proposal for cohering the major existing nodes of arts activity into an over-arching ‘cultural district’ that will also encourage relocation of many organizations and artists much further downtown.
His thesis is that ‘The Arts’ are a significant contributor to the economic well being of the New York area, and, as such, should receive public investment and assistance. Declaring them the last remaining smokestack industry in New York seems to be a strategy intended to prompt massive reinvestment. This reflects a poor understanding of the city’s economic history, and offers no leverage for adapting existing or historical development schemes. The city did next to nothing to discourage the dismantling of manufacturing in the city, but, more so, what is the corollary? Relocation of Julliard to Taiwan? If anything, the ‘arts community’ is highly fractured (and fractious), not ‘vertically-integrated.’ They do make the point that many artists are relocating to cities that are more ‘artist-friendly,’ such as Portland, Oregon. My limited experience is anyone interested in the arts who moves to a smaller metropolitan area is already established and seeking alternatives New York cannot offer (geography, a differing attitude about regional cultural production, etc.), or simply failing to make a dent in their respective career and looking for a lower threshold of accomplishment.
And even in the cases where the city actively supports industry, it is mostly in the form of tax abatement and PILOT (Payments In Lieu of Taxes) agreements. Very little direct subsidy occurs. Arts organizations already receive tax breaks that exceed those offered to private enterprise (though they do offer some interesting ideas, such as abatement pass-thrus to landlords that rent to arts organizations), so the city has little developmental ammunition to deliver, excepting direct grants.
By declaring downtown as a viable arts district worthy of direct and indirect subsidy immediately after providing a succinct synopsis of the arts district to gentrification cycle (“Again and again we see the cycle — artists move into a blighted or under-utilized neighborhood. Eventually, the neighborhood becomes a ‘destination.’ The real estate booms. The artists and arts organizations, including the ones that had been there for decades, are driven out by the new market rents. Some organizations go under. The others limp to a new blighted neighborhood and begin again, diminished. The newly revitalized neighborhood they left behind somehow ‘loses its luster,’ leaving perfectly serviceable luxury residential areas with no discernible character.”) colors the entire program as real estate subsidy for the black sheep of middle-class families everywhere. You know the profile: Child One inherits the business, Child Two becomes a high-earning professional, and Child Three becomes a… filmmaker.
Promoting ownership of facilities for arts organizations is fine idea. Encouraging artists to own their space is good advice. But when even the most underdeveloped section of Manhattan south of 125th Street will still fetch north of $400/sq ft, it will be near impossible to structure a program that acquires property outright or encourages owners to participate in discount or stabilized rent relationships. And no one who has come of age as an artist in the past generation is ignorant of this cycle. Deciding where to be an artist is as much an act of real estate speculation as it is an expressive act.
Gerson’s map is a step towards codifying planning development that could have a beneficial effect on arts organizations, and should be embraced enthusiastically, but not for the benefit of downtown, but as the first step of building an infrastructure that supports the arts on the order of Paris or Berlin.
As for the artists, they should go live in the South Bronx. For the city to be visionary about where the army of cultural producers can perch, it has to be off Manhattan: Long Island City, Astoria, the Bronx, and beyond. This is where housing/zoning programs need to be focused. They need to be combined with programs that encourage home ownership by the existing population, and to integrate disparate cultures, not simply displace them. Everyone applies the veneer of SoHo and TriBeCa as they exist today to what any ‘artist housing’ program should look like. But the genesis was much different (a friend who was pioneer was fascinated to read that Gordon Matta-Clark’s Food held various art happenings late in the evening; she used to go there because it was the only restaurant around). There are a number of neighborhoods that are viable for creative and equitable reinvestment. An artists enclave has never arisen in a mature real estate district, and the cost to force one on downtown will lead to an even faster dissolution of non-mainstream arts organizations.