CULTURAL DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIES AND URBAN REVITALIZATION

Abstract

Municipal governments around the globe increasingly turn to museums, performing arts centers, arts districts, and other cultural activities to promote and revitalize their cities. While a significant body of literature examines revitalization strategies that focus primarily around entertainment and commerce, the empirical body of research that specifically investigates the role of cultural strategies in urban redevelopment is still growing. This paper first discusses the development of municipal cultural strategies in the United States, and draws from the literature to outline the characteristics of three different models of such strategies. Second, the paper presents findings from a national survey distributed to municipal agencies involved in the promotion and development of cultural activities and facilities in large and medium‐sized US cities. The survey data indicate that although most agencies are guided by a varied set of goals, entrepreneurial objectives continue to guide the development and support of cultural activities in most cities.

KEYWORDS:

• cultural development strategies
• US cities

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The authors wish to thank the anonymous reviewers for their careful reading and valuable comments on this manuscript.

Notes

1. Cultural Affairs is the most common designation in the US for the municipal agency variously charged with developing, managing, funding, and marketing local cultural activities.

2. In providing this brief summary of international cultural policy, this section necessarily generalizes about the various experiences of what are diverse places and does not address the varying definitions of “culture” by local governments.

3. The progressive approach is similar to that put forth by the cultural democracy and community arts movements, which are concerned with promoting cultural diversity, ensuring equitable access to cultural resources, and a broad participation in cultural life and cultural policy decision‐making (Adams & Goldbard 1995).

4. A copy of the survey questionnaire is available upon request from the authors.

5. Bayliss (2004) recently conducted a survey of 19 municipal Arts Officers in Denmark in which he finds evidence of a “social turn” in cultural policy. However, while Danish officials seem to reject economic goals for more socially focused objectives, in practice they emphasize cultural strategies that favor consumption over production and those that are targeted at generating economic growth. In the US, Judd et al. (2003) recently conducted a survey of public entities that concentrated on tourism and entertainment facilities, rather than specifically on cultural activities and facilities. At the same time, this survey finds that cities develop and market cultural activities as a central strategy to attract tourists.

6. We initially piloted the survey in the Los Angeles Department of Cultural Affairs. The cities that responded to the survey were: Atlanta, Austin, Baltimore, Boston, Buffalo, Chicago, Dallas, Houston, Indianapolis, Los Angeles, Milwaukee, Minneapolis, Nashville, New Orleans, New York City, Oakland, Oklahoma City, Phoenix, Pittsburgh, Portland, Raleigh, Sacramento, San Antonio, San Diego, San Jose, Seattle, St Louis, Tampa, and Wichita. The cities that did not respond to the survey were: Albuquerque, Anaheim, Anchorage, Aurora, Cincinnati, Colorado Springs, Corpus Christi, Denver, Detroit, El Paso, Honolulu, Las Vegas, Lexington, Louisville, Miami, San Francisco, Toledo, Tucson, Virginia Beach, Washington DC. Seven cities with populations over 250,000 did not maintain a division of Cultural Affairs.

7. Two cities – Indianapolis and Nashville – maintained both individual Cultural Affairs agencies and a related agency as a division of the Mayor’s office (Indianapolis) and of Economic Development (Nashville). The latter divisions were not included in the survey population.

8. A full report that includes the responses from all three types of agencies (Cultural Affairs, Vistors Bureaus, and Economic Development) is available from the authors upon request.

9. State authorized property tax exemptions also comprise an important form of support for nonprofit cultural institutions. We thank an anonymous reviewer for this observation.

10. The mean annual budget of Cultural Affairs Departments does not include New York City Cultural Affairs, whose annual budget is $123m, nearly 13 times greater than the next largest agency budget.

11. The survey did not specifically distinguish between cultural facilities and cultural institutions or organizations.

12. It is interesting to note, however, that agencies concentrate their promotional efforts on local (91%) and regional (73%) levels to a far greater extent than national (5%) or international (5%).

13. Of course, because the survey did not specifically explore the varying definitions of “quality of life”, we can only speculate on the respondents’ conceptualization of this term.

14. This does not mean that other municipal agencies refrain from adopting creative class‐based strategies.