I didn't make all through that. But my initial reaction is that for a city like DC with both an extremely high income tax and property tax not to be investing that money into cultural resources (and instead giving themselves pay raises) is a serious issue for Fenty's plan to make this a "world class city." (I cringe at that term, as it what second or third tier cities say when they are trying to attract a football team or some other populist entertainment -- think Sacramento or Birmingham.) Boston, New York, Chicago, San Francisco -- these are world class cities which is reflected in how important they are in attracting foreign tourists, if nothing else. All are cities that thrive not just with commerce but with diverse and homegrown culture -- and major cultural institutions that constantly innovate. This is why MassMOCA is so important, and why its a world class institution that our contemporary and modern art museums can't match.
DC needs to look at the types of cultural development (and funding) that other cities use -- from Chicago's city level management of cross promotion to SF's art tax on restaurants and hotels -- all coordinated through the cultural arts department. These are major forces in their city, and keep funding and ideas flowing from one institution to another.
How about a DC cultural arts license plate? The California arts license plate (an extra $50) raises over 1/2 of the budget for the extremely important California Arts Council.
(For a review of that initial policy document, see here.
As you and I discussed this fall, in my opinion, the failure of the City Museum was predictable. To pin its success on the new convention center generating a market for whatever was the amorphous concept behind the City Museum, was just plain silly.
I am also not convinced that the new convention center is going to be any more successful than the old CC, which never made a profit.
While you bridle at the "tryanny of uniqueness," I react just as strongly to the "tryanny of semantics and language" that tries to turn something that is really an art into a science with a magic formula for repeated success.
IMO, at base, there has to be a market for cultural activities and a legitimate strategy to satisfy that market just like any other business activity. There are lots of folks out there with plenty of moolah who could be persuaded to become funders--or are actively seeking--involvement with cultural and arts organizations if the project makes sense and fulfills a need.
Look at the Meads, the Reynolds, Patricia Sitar, etc. who have clearly tapped into new/old markets with their giving.
E -- this is something we have very different perspectives on. I agree 100% about the CC -- see the link on this blog to Heywood Sanders' work.
But you selectively define market. The beneficiaries of cultural resources are the private sector (hotels, restaurants, other stakeholders, employees) while the attractions in DC anyway are paid for out of tax monies.
This justifies tourism based taxes--and is one reason why restaurant sales taxes are so high.
I could just as easily argue that the market for higher education justifies the elimination of the residential aspect of Foggy Bottom in favor of GWU.
That would be similarly limited in conceptualization. There are social values to history and cultural resources that aren't "fully" captured by the market, and won't ever be. These are called collective goods.
I merely say that we should be direct about funding such resources. (Even though I love the special license plate. Although I did blog about the Georgia State historic preservation license plate a couple weeks ago.) And we should set priorities and increase funding.
Instead our priorities tend towards things like baseball and soccer stadiums which have little direct positive impact on the city as a whole.
AND you likely could provide cogent arguments about why GWU isn't the best thing since sliced bread for Foggy Bottom.
I don't think your examples of the Meads and Reynolds (I don't know about P. Sitar, although I know the center a bit) are apt. Rich people tend to fund theater and certain kinds of arts. Not much in the way of history (although there are many exceptions) and African-American related institutions (such as the Lincoln).
In any case, there is no question that DC has a limited number of indigenous rich people and many of those that do exist work and benefit from sectors (development, parking and the professions that serve these interests) that don't find historic preservation for one to be in concert with their professional needs and "values."
You should read this very old blog entry first. If you disagree with that one, well, we're not likely to ever see eye to eye.
Who Loves DC? -- More about DC tourism
"Rich people tend to fund theater and certain kinds of arts. Not much in the way of history (although there are many exceptions) and African-American related institutions (such as the Lincoln)."
R-
I'll read your post when I have a bit more time tomorrow. I think where we have different perspectives is in how to achieve things that we agree are important.
I'm a common-sense, intuition kind of gal with a lot of observational experience (probably about 15 more years than you have), and I have little patience for the latest definitions, theories, and management techniques because I have seen so many of them come and go. I've worked as a consultant to finance types for about 25 years and they're always focused on the market and/or creating new markets and highly successful.
My biggest successes have come from a lot of sweat equity and education of the folks that I want to engage. If there are currently not a lot of rich people interested in funding historic projects, my attitude is that is great--it means you have more of an opportunity to convince some of them to be the trailblazers. Take a look at what Oprah just did.
I guess one of the things I was trying to say also is that I am not sure who has the right to determine what rates as the most important cultural/historical resource. I've been through many, many land use cases in the last seven years where it is quite clear that one person's vibrancy is another person's objectionable effect.
As a very amateur observer and participant in historic matters, I am also conflicted many times about which is the most important story to tell. There are so many different eras that are now invisible in my neighborhood. While GWU has trashed much of historic Foggy Bottom, so have the World Bank, IMF, IFC, Watergate, KenCen and outmigration to the suburbs. Foggy Bottom had 150 years as Hamburg, Funkstown, and West End before GWU even set foot in the area. Not to mention the discoveries of 200, 300, and 500-year-old Canadian Native American archeological resources on the banks where Rock Creek runs into the Potomac in the last 10 years. This is compelling history to me and a story worth telling.
Maybe I mis-read what you said...the CuDC does now own the Source, but they were not the ones involved in the contract with Bedrock Billiards, the Source board/Theatre Co. was. CuDC has every intention of reopening the Source (sans the Source Theatre Co.) as a black-box theater and teaching space.
You can't or shouldn't only tell one story. While history is linear, the story is not. A colleague calls the different threads "perspectives," I prefer to call history a mosaic, likening it to a tangled skein of threads.
All the stories have value. Some, especially oral histories and remembrances, tell some of the story, but not necessarily all of the story.
Anyway, don't get me going about practitioners. I joke that most practitioners lack the perspective and familiarity with other places to be good at generating broader understanding.
I wrote on a preservation elist the other day this:
As someone interested in linking research to practice to aid in the development of successful and replicable best practices, the major "problem" I have with a lot of the conference sessions in preservation and planning is that practitioners don't seem to be good at sussing out best practices and structures and systems. For the most part, our sessions are at the case study level. ... Why aren't we pushing practice forward towards successful, replicable and sustainable best practices?
-----
I overanalyze DC, I go to other places, I read, both new and old! stuff, I attend conferences, I work with people in other communities, and I put it all together.
I am attempting praxis, linking theory and practice.
So I wouldn't consider it a run of the mill perspective. Maybe not cutting edge, but definitely beyond the typical, especially locally.
As a professional working artist I was highly offended by the city's lack of creativity or sensitivity in kicking out the Washington sculpture facility. now we no longer have a real live working facility in this city for artists and sculptors to learn or practice their art skills. The city was highly negligent in these actions- and should have provided generous tax incentives/ breaks, alternative real estate for these arts organisations- and not let these assetts go out to Northern Viagra. If only the same love and care that has been lavished on the non- native Washingtonian Ben's Chili Bowl were given to some of our real cultural institions- this city would be a better place.It is our loss.
I agree w/ the above- the visual&plastic [sculpture] arts recieve very sparse funding in the USA- as opposed to the musical or dramatic arts. It is a very deep prejudice in this country and needs to be addressed not only in DC but all over the USA.
Point of Information: Washington Glass School had found a home in Mt Rainier, just past Eastern Ave in Prince George's County, MD
All the deals with Arlington fell thru, both finacial and time-wise.
bonus casino code sign up bonus casino code sign up bonus casino code sign up. casino poker set casino poker set casino poker set.
Commenting by HaloScan
