"Artist Live-Work Space" is a dead issue; at a half-million bucks a pop it's more like a fiction. Working artists get shut-out by wealthy arts consumers, as in NYC's SoHo, and actual working artists are forced to migrate. Artist studio space -- for visual and performing arts -- is the primary and essential need, with rental housing for working artists nearby.
There is no reason artists can't share work space; there is no reason they must own homes. If you want to develop a "Gallery District," fine; call it that. If you want an "Arts District," provide appropriate studio space and rental housing for working artists.
"Arts District Hyattsville" is a property development by EYA. The Gateway Arts District is a broader construct. I was writing about both, and my broad comments were about the Gateway District as a whole. The Gateway CDC, surprisingly not part of the presentation team, is impressive for the little amount of resources it has.
Richard:
I've only glanced at the larger Gateway Study, but it seems to pay lip-service to the needs of artists while leaving them out of the plan. There are enough studies of the needs of cultural producers and the human capital of the arts by Markusen and others; “arts district” plans that expedite displacement of producing artists by wealthy consumers are inexcusable in the 21st century. Sadly, that looks what’s happening here.
Mike Licht hits the nail on the the head in his comments."arts district" is a fiction.It is just more housing for rich lawyers & realtors , etc...if it were a real "arts district" they would build large warehouses and allow the artists to live in them.I disagree with one of his statements- real working artists SHOULD try to buy real estate and stay- visual /sculptural artists are NOT musicians nor are we performing arts people that can move around constantly. The process of moving and carting around large works or the kinds of things artists naturally hoard/accumulate mitigates against a transient lifestyle- especially for more traditionalist artists[ like myself] this process is highly disruptive to the work effort and for stability !!!!
You can't equate the EYA project with all that is being done in the Gateway Arts District.
Considering the limited resources the CDC has, they've done a lot. More in my opinion than we tend to do in DC, with far more in the way of opportunities to do something, and locational advantages. (Although this is coupled with the locational disadvantage of high rents.)
Since when has DC opened up a subsidized studio facility for artists? The Gateway CDC just did.
The Gateway CDC provided space for the Washington Glass School, when DC forced their displacement. Etc.
I think they've constructed 60+ subsidized live work units. That's probably more than in DC in the same period (from 2002-present).
It isn't perfect. But I still find what they do, with the limited resources they have, reasonably impressive.
And it's community involved. The Gateway CDC's board members are elected by members from each town (not Hyattsville, I don't know why, but from Mt. Rainier, Brentwood and North Brentwood). That level of democracy isn't present in the typical equivalent organization in DC either.
OK
I agree that DC does just about nothing for artists
Im OK with fending for myself and no hand outs needed- but when other places look out more for arts people- make life easier- and not just performing arts people[ as DC seems to focus more on] it begs attention.
Also- notice that the grant moneies alloted to individual artists always seem to go to the same select group of big names?
It is almost impossible to get one's foot in the door with any public arts projects in this city unless you invent it yourself- and then some carpetbagger will steal your idea and make money off of it, and leave the city.
W -- We agree on the needs of artists but, with all due respect, "use value" is more important than individual ownership. A "Producer's Co-Op" type of ownership is certainly a more realistic option if you think this promotes stability. IMHO individual ownership actually sets the stage for artist displacement. A producing artists' co-op may be more difficult for rich consumers to displace.
I have seen shared visual arts studio space and it works well, especially given the expense of current legal requirements for studio ventilation. And I assure you it is just as awkward to move a professional sprung dance floor, theater lighting, or modern music equipment, and even harder to find acoustically-isolated, quietly-ventilated rehearsal spaces for performing artists.
Richard and W.: The District of Columbia Government's arts agency has been run by an arts consumer, appointed during the waning days of the last Barry administration. Before that, arts professionals ran the agency, and 90 percent of arts grants were awarded through the peer-review panel process. Current leadership has dropped panel-reviewed grants as low as 30 percent of budget, awarding funds through staff recommendation, and producing its own events that compete with those of the DC nonprofits which form the agency's constituency.
This neglect of best practices has encouraged the Mayor and Council to introduce large earmark requests for big institutions that need it the least. Mayor Fenty's pal Mike Bloomberg has rejected arts earmarks and insisted on a competitive grant process in NYC. Why not DC?
See http://notionscapital.wordpress....s-earmark-rage/
"arts administrators" are a flock of dilettants and quacks - and they jealously guard their territory and domain. It is the refuge of the less talented people .They love power and being able to say "no" gives them orgasms.
W: Public arts professionals are not hired for their arts talent (thank God). They are hired for their knowledge of fair practice in re-granting public funds to artists and arts organizations.
It is not a secret method; it is how public funds are fairly distributed to researchers in medicine, the sciences, and the humanities -- disinterested peer review. Arts administrators do not say "no;" panelists say "this application is better than that one according to the published criteria."
I am not an arts professional, but I've worked for them. The best will always look at an applicant's draft application before the deadline and suggest ways to make it more competitive. After funding decisions are made, they will debrief all applicants, whether they were funded or not. Why? An application funded this year might not be competitive enough next year.
Perhaps your experience has been with pettifogging bureaucrats who occupied positions that called for trained arts professionals. There is a lot of that going around. I empathize.
P.S.: I think we have veered off Richard's topic here, so let's encourage him to post more about arts and planning, okay?
Commenting by HaloScan
