In the article "Arts and Culture in Urban or Regional Planning: A Review and Research Agenda" by Ann Markusen and Anne Gadwa, the question was raised of whether it is preferable to have arts organizations concentrated in one area of the city, usually downtown, or spread out throughout many neighborhoods. My first reaction was that all of the arts should be located in a designated "arts district" or "theatre district". Growing-up, I loved getting dressed-up and going downtown to a big show in a fancy theatre. But now that I am concerned with the benefits the arts provide to the area they are located in, I find my opinion shifting to the belief that the arts should be spread throughout a city.
I agree with the theory that the arts provide an economic vibrancy for the area they are located in. But I have never lived or worked in a downtown area where most arts are located, and so I have never seen why I should care whether the downtown areas were thriving or not. However, if the arts are located in my neighborhood, the places I live and work, I would be very motivated to make sure the arts are creating vibrancy. This is why I think it is very important to support and develop arts organizations in your neighborhood and to encourage city planning officials to support these organizations as well.
I agree with the idea that the arts should be spread out throughout different neighborhoods within a community. The thought that there is a specific "arts district" is rather limiting. It almost as if a community is saying "The arts can only exist here within in this tiny box." That goes against the whole foundation of the arts. We think outside the box. We look past and break barriers. If the arts are existent all throughout a community, the whole community is rich.
ReplyDelete