LOGIN | REGISTER AS A USER


Article/Archives | Advanced Search

Style Weekly - Cover StoriesStyle Weekly - News & FeaturesStyle Weekly - ArtStyle Weekly - MusicStyle Weekly - MoviesStyle Weekly - Food & DrinkStyle Weekly - CalendarStyle Weekly - OpinionStyle Weekly - Classifieds
TWITTER  |  FACEBOOK  |  RSS  | THE SCOOP HOME  |  CONTACT US  |  ABOUT US  |  ADVERTISE

Bookmark and Share

 
, Posted On: 2/9/2010

District Mine


A special arts district is all we need? Think again.
by Chris Dovi
 

As a Quirk Gallery exhibit shows, art is a window to the mind. But there’s a different sort of psychological examination happening at the downtown gallery Jan. 27, with a cool, crisp, early-morning gathering of Richmond’s business, booster, government, arts and cultural leaders.

They’re here to consider the advice of Theresa Cameron of Americans for the Arts, an author of Maryland’s arts and cultural district law and a recognized national expert on creating specially designated arts districts as economic and tourism engines. “You don’t just say we’ll put one in here and people will come,” Cameron tells the gathering, stressing cooperation with Richmond’s leaders but also “acceptance and buy-in from the community at large.”

For nearly a year, city leaders, state codes and the city’s arts community have alternately clashed and come together over discussions of how best to preserve and to promote this short, once-blighted stretch of Broad Street and its First Fridays Arts Walk, an event that based on attendance has become one of the city’s single most successful economic-development activities of the past decade.

The meeting signals hopeful signs of cooperation. City leaders are on board, and Councilman Charles Samuels’ office has been working on a proposal to create an arts district. Any such plan would require only a vote by City Council. As easy as the process may sound, the meeting also reveals potential conflict that threatens to dilute all efforts.

The meeting’s participants are varied, which should be a strength but could well reveal itself as the greatest weakness in any effort to create a Richmond arts and culture district: Valentine Richmond History Museum Executive Director Bill Martin, who helped oversee the adoption of a cultural action plan for the major arts organizations, Curated Culture Director Christina Newton, organizer of First Fridays; a handful of art gallery owners and directors; two Jack Berrys, respective heads of the city’s Convention and Visitors Bureau and Venture Richmond; Richmond’s community development director, Rachel Flynn, city booster and CenterStage ringleader Jim Ukrop, Maymont Foundation Executive Director Norman Burns, here representing Museum District leaders, Samuels, and Suzette Denslow, chief of staff to Mayor Dwight C. Jones. 

One notable absence is anyone directly representing the city’s Department of Economic Development, which may already possess the tools needed to create a successful arts district.

Cameron gives plenty of advice: Push for lengthy leases so that cultural businesses are protected from rent increases, develop shared spaces and draft zoning requirements similar to mixed income housing requirements in order to encourage affordable business spaces. Most of all, she says, “everybody has to work together.” And one more word of advice: “I caution you about not making your district too large.” Overall, she says, “you guys are on the right track.”

During the presentation, there’s plenty of head nodding. Afterward, Ukrop is seen in an enthusiastic conversation with Cameron, seemingly quizzing her for more information.

But little more than 24 hours after Cameron outlines the importance of working together toward a united goal — of focusing efforts on geographically manageable zones — disunity in Richmond’s leadership lays itself bare in a series of e-mails sent between Maymont’s Burns and the event’s organizer, John Bryan. He’s president of CultureWorks, a cultural arts umbrella group reformed last year in an effort to unify the direction of Richmond’s arts leadership.

Burns, whose voice is new to the public discourse about arts and culture districts, inserts a proprietary wedge into the congratulatory tone of Bryan’s next-day debriefing e-mail: “I personally do not like Arts and Entertainment District as a descriptor for Richmond,” Burns writes. He draws a line in the sand for those involved in the arts district discussion that conjures turf war rather than cooperation. “Do not forget that the corridors mentioned yesterday have to include the Boulevard.”

The Valentine’s Martin tries to restore focus to what location or locations may become arts districts, suggesting a future in which Richmond has five arts, culture or museum districts, centered around museums downtown and on Boulevard, and arts and cultural amenities on Main and Broad streets and in Manchester. 

The city’s Flynn says she’s watched the e-mail debate and calls Burns’ push for inclusion valid, and part of answering the question of what Richmond wants from an arts district. “Do we include the Boulevard because of the museums?” Flynn asks. “What about Main Street? Do we go into Manchester? A big part of this whole question around arts districts is how do you define the boundaries? What are peoples’ expectations?”

But the cracks Burns reveals threaten to expand, worries Newton with Curated Culture. “The problem I don’t think people understand is we can have as many districts as we want, but it’s one thing to create tax incentives in one area,” she says, worried that five districts become six and then more. “Do you multiply [district incentives] by five areas in a city already in debt?”

Ironically, though not yet in name, Richmond may already have the proto-arts district that the parties seek — though it may encompass just the sort of sprawling geographical area Cameron warns against.
In 2003, a combination of state and local incentives helped secure tobacco giant Philip Morris’s decision to move its headquarters here from New York. Among those incentives was the creation of a massive enterprise zone area straddling parts of Henrico and a massive swath of Richmond.

Richmond’s zone, which contains many — if not most — of the tax and financing incentives written into the state’s recently adopted arts district legislation, excludes far less than it includes. Most of the Fan District and a large quadrant bordered by the Downtown Expressway, the Henrico County line and points just west of the Lee Bridge are the largest areas outside of it.

Since the matter of the arts district has gained traction with politicians and top-level business leaders, many of the First Fridays gallery owners have said they’re unaware of either the enterprise zone or of the incentives that it may offer. Among those incentives are generous tax rebates and loans for rehabilitation of buildings for both property owners and tenants, even grants to assist in hiring new employees.

Newton says she’s met with the city’s chief financial officer, Peter Chapman, who oversees the city’s Department of Economic Development, but confirms that many of the incentives available remain unknown and unadvertised by the department charged with promoting them. “We have worked on and off [over the years] with economic development, but they haven’t done a great job of educating the community to the benefits they could provide to small businesses,” Newton says, leaving struggling arts businesses “to do your own research.”

She says the department, with its enterprise-zone tools, could prove vital to future arts or cultural districts: “This is about how we attract more people and business to our downtown to drive more money downtown.”

For now, while Newton wonders about effective leadership with a focused goal, Flynn says she stakes her hopes on Mayor Jones’ team and Bryan’s work representing them.

Notably, Jones attended the national Mayor’s Institute on City Design, a National Endowment for the Arts program last summer. His attendance, as Cameron says, is a prequalifier to receiving large grants of as much as $250,000. Bryan met with endowment representatives Feb. 1 to discuss the matter and hopes the city might qualify for that grant, which would be awarded before July 1.

Bryan says he’s pleased to see conversation and healthy debate among those who listened to Cameron at Quirk. “Right now, CultureWorks’ position is that we want to be a catalyst for anyone in the city who has an interest in an arts district,” Bryan says, calling questions of geography “premature.”

“We think it’s important that all those districts be at the table,” he says, noting that many are not only separate districts, but also are represented by different City Council districts, and “you can’t pass something with one vote on City Council.”


Articles/Archives:
  • Dogging the Trail
  • Don’t Fence Me In
  • Fairly Fantastic
  • We Like It
  • The Writing on the Wall

Comment:
Sunday, February 14, 2010 11:10:41 AM by FanGuy
Lamb, thanks for the insightful input into this thread. You are truly advancing the conversation.
Sunday, February 14, 2010 9:27:06 AM by Lamb
FanGuy, you really know how to steer conversations into a rut of stupidity.

Uncle Junior, you aren't even slightly funny.
Friday, February 12, 2010 3:09:49 PM by anonymous
I would argue that quality of life and culture are related. Tourism happens to be a result of culture.

Of course, Richmond won't be a destination for art unless the proper environment is created for it. However, even with a lack of support, the Richmond arts scene is already attracting patrons from outside the city, but will only expand if it is given the proper environment. I agree that the current outreach is modest in comparison to higher profile cities. However, I also believe that this kind of logic is like failing to promote/support the James River because it doesn't compare to Yellow Stone.

Regardless, I have enjoyed this conversation and feel as though I have said as much as I wanted to.

Thanks and take care.
Friday, February 12, 2010 11:34:00 AM by FanGuy
Tourists aren't coming to Richmond for art.

NY, L.A., etc, sure. Those are legit art tourist destinations. Richmond, no.

I'm all for supporting the arts, but let's keep things in perspective. It's about Richmond quality of life (which is a very important factor in attracting new businesses and residents) it's not about tourism.
Friday, February 12, 2010 11:12:13 AM by anonymous
Arts and culture are wellsprings for tourism.

My argument is that tourism is an essential service because that is what aids in paying people such as, fire fighters. Relying on internal revenue alone is limiting.
Friday, February 12, 2010 10:39:54 AM by FanGuy
Sorry anon, I was using the general "you", I didn't mean to imply I thought you specifically were an artist.

Comparing artists to firemen, and other essential city services, however, is not a good way for you to make your argument, IMO.
Friday, February 12, 2010 10:23:15 AM by anonymous
You are making the unfair assumption that I am an artist.

Maybe the city should stop paying people put out our fires, keep us safe or plow our roads? In the past it was all volunteer, but it become increasingly obvious that it is necessary to pay people so that they can be more organized and more effectively carry out their job.

Tourism helps pay for these services and ensures our city is prosperous. Without art and culture. Less tourism. It is a matter of necessity. Both parties benefit from the interchange. A billboard might bring people here for one visit, but we need more than that. We need repeated visits and even a migration here.

Many of my friends and family members consider Richmond to be a dying city, living in the past, and too afraid of real progress. The city will have to take risks and think outside of it's current box. Next time I have a guest come visit me, I would like my tour of Richmond not to be solely limited to a handful of questionably unique options.

What we already have here will flourish - due to added revenue -, we will attract people to fill up all of these vacant residencies, and we will ensure the establishment of another attraction.

...and more importantly there are social and intellectual benefits that the arts bring.
Thursday, February 11, 2010 10:48:21 PM by FanGuy
If you need the city to reward you, maybe you aren't they great of an artist and shouldn't quit your day job.
Thursday, February 11, 2010 10:21:08 PM by anonymous strikes again
If you participate in something without monetary gains eventually your resources run out. Perhaps you eventually realize that your "product" benefits someone. Then you come to logical conclusion to ask for a small contribution from those you benefit so that you may continue to help them.

The relationship is symbiotic. Like the Egyptian Plover bird and the crocodile. "I will clean your teeth unless you stubbornly try to eat me. If you eat me, your teeth will rot."

It is more complex of a dynamic than "gimme gimme." Ironically you are justifying a "gimme gimme" for the city. Give us your art which creates revenue for us, but don't ask for our support.

. . . and you are using the term "art for art's sake" incorrectly. It was about art without "purpose" not without an intent to be compensated for it's creation.
Thursday, February 11, 2010 9:50:09 PM by FanGuy
Wait, artists only create so that they can be rewarded? What happened to art for art's sake?

Corporate welfare is taboo to the arts folks in this town until they realize they also want tax breaks, incentives, etc. in the name of "economic development" then it becomes gimme gimme.
Thursday, February 11, 2010 9:31:30 PM by anonymous
A city without culture isn't one worth visiting. When a city isn't attracting visitor's it's economy remains stagnant. The economic returns of cultivating an arts district will be indirect as opposed to direct.

The interchange between artists and the city should be as follows. Artists attract people to spend their money on food, rooms, etc. This money translates to taxes. The taxes generate revenue for the city. Than the city takes some of this money and monetarily rewards artists so that they can continue to attract visitors.

If the city fails to reward the artists, the artists are forced to stop creating work. The lack of work kills what makes the city unique and the tourism dwindles.

Getting a degree in business does not ensure that you will do well. If prospective customers do not know about your business you won't make any sales. This is why businesses and corporations hire commercial artists to attract customers. Business people usually aren't creative enough to attract the customers themselves. That's why they spend millions on branding and campaigns. This interchange isn't much different than what should be the exchange between art galleries and our city.
Thursday, February 11, 2010 5:36:40 PM by Uncle Junior
I hate Richmond Art Organizations because you don't have the sense that God gave you to hire someone on your board or to run your place that isn't afraid of money. That's why they have business majors in school you idiots. You all run around with your poverty vibe complaining that you're poor and you need a donation to fix your roof and the city is going to shut you down for building code violations. Get a freakin' clue and take a Suze Orman class instead of spending all your money on turpentine. Line 'em up.
-----------------------------
Junior
http://www.unclejuniorsbananarodeo.blogspot.com

Comment Box
 
Choose an identity
Registered Blogger Other
 
Username 
Password 
No Registered Blogger account? Sign up here.
CAPTCHA Validation
Retype the code from the picture
CAPTCHA Code Image
Speak the code Change the code