This week’s readings and class visit to
Western Avenue Studios prompted thoughts about the ways in which the arts can
revitalize a community through or without gentrification. I understand three
different views between the two articles and the artist. Deutsche and Ryan repeatedly
refer to artists as middle-class, implying a snobbish attitude. In contrast, Richard
Florida (2002) discusses the attraction of municipalities with diverse arts and
cultural areas. Yet, it is possible for artists and galleries to do-exist
within a historically low-income neighborhood, like the Lowell, MA, Acre, as
our discussion with artist Maxine Farkas indicates. Farkas points out the
affordability of the artist studios and live-work spaces as a driving force
behind the success of Western Avenue Studios, a key in the revitalization of
Lowell.
For example, Rosalyn Deutsche and Cara
Gendel Ryan’s (1984) article regarding Manhattan’s Lower East Side rails
against gentrification and seems to blame artists, galleries, and museums for improving
an impoverished area to the degree that poor or lower income people are pushed
out. Deutsche and Ryan review the changes of the Lower East Side between 1981
and 1983, focusing on gentrification and blaming art. Although a growth from
two to 25 galleries over 2 years is incredible, the introduction and success of
artists in a lower financial status neighborhood does not always mean the poor
and working class residents will be forced out. Deutsche and Ryan state, “The
immediate aim [of the city] is to dislodge a largely redundant working-class
community” without considering the challenges artists and galleries face. In
addition, the article authors quote a Lower East Side vicar who talks about
gentrification in a more general sense, not specifically as the result of art
galleries moving in to a neighborhood. One point repeated throughout this
article is the plight of people displaced by a city’s revitalization effort.
There is no mention of the landlords that do not maintain their properties or the
local employment situation in the early 1980s, although there are a few
mentions of Pres. Reagan’s economic policies (or Reaganomics) and the impact on
already struggling people.
Loosely citing statistics about the change
from a blue-collar to a white-collar economy in New York City (NYC) between
1977 and 1984, technological advances are ignored and policies are held up as a
driving factor. In contrast, Florida (2002) views societal changes and the
migration of potential employees as a signal a city is not doing enough to keep
young talent in the local economy to aid in future success of the city. Opening
the article with an observation and conversation with a college student about
to move from Pittsburgh, PA, to Austin, TX, Florida describes the creative
class and what attracts these workers to specific areas. The main factor seems
to be diversity in many, if not all, of its forms from lifestyles to cultures
and individuality. Looking at large, medium, and small cities with populations from
250,000 to over 1 million, Florida highlights a creativity index based on
information from the 2000 US Census with percentages of creative workers and
diversity, as well as high-tech and innovation ranks. A glaring omission, in
comparison with Deutsche and Ryan’s article, is the mention of poor or lower
working-class people and homelessness. At the same time, Florida’s focus is
figuring out how and why municipalities gain or keep creative class members and
how approaches may or may not hamper such efforts.
The idea that a city can thrive, even
grow, without the looming presence of big-box retailers and with diverse
cultures, arts, locally-owned businesses, and creative outlets is not simply an
ideal to be reached; rather, it is a possibility, even on a smaller scale in a
city with around 110,000 residents. Balancing the needs of diverse communities
and neighborhoods within a city is not easy, especially when multiple cultures
from various ethnicities, races, financial statuses, and walks of life live in close
proximity. Lowell is attempting to find this balance. That’s not to say
gentrification does not occur whatsoever; however, I do not believe artists are
to blame for municipalities looking to increase revenue or off-load city-owned
buildings that strain local budgets. In fact, I believe when revitalization
through arts and culture is done responsibly, jobs are created, more revenue
comes in to the city, and a thriving and diverse community benefits.
During our discussion, Farkas said it is
difficult for artists to make a living off their work, a statement that
counters Deutsche and Ryan’s narrative that artists and galleries are bourgeoisie.
The owner of the Western Avenue Studios appears to have found that delicate
balance between encouraging the arts, contributing to a city’s revitalization,
and not gentrifying a neighborhood. Situated near the border of a poor to
working-class residential neighborhood, and in an industrial zone with special zoning
variances for the artists’ live-work spaces, Western Avenue Studios does not seem
to impose or impede upon the surrounding area. Instead, the formerly all but
abandoned mill buildings are part of a thriving community in a city that has
come back from the brink a few times over the last century, most recently in
the late 1970s- early 80s and, again, in the late 1990s and early 2000s. Both
revitalization efforts were sparked to life in conjunction with the arts. The
differences between these comebacks are there are more galleries now than in
the 1980s and 90s, a renewed sense of community, and the city benefits from
revenues generated through art and cultural celebrations. Granted, Western
Avenue Studios is unique in the co-existence within, and positive contributions
to, a larger community. However, while the city has a lot of affordable housing
options for poor, elderly, and lower financial status people (although there are
never truly enough openings), there is an overfull homeless shelter and many
people living on the streets. It is rare for any city not to have a homeless
population.
Furthermore, the success of Western Avenue
Studios may be viewed as a model for revitalizing depressed areas, embracing
the arts, giving artists a community within a community, increasing a
municipality’s attractiveness and creativity rankings, and give rise to a new
generation of creators in multiple job sectors. Although I feel like I say this
while wearing rose-colored glasses, I see it happening in my city. I see the
small businesses of our downtown area, many of which have a connection to the
arts from the local art displayed and sold at Brew’d Awakening and UnchARTed to
the planned gallery space at the Lowell Housing Authority office across the
street from public housing.
In another blog post, I mentioned the
fight within the city over the high school location and how moving the school
would encourage gentrification in a city built by and comprised of immigrants
and their descendants. Gentrification has occurred here before, in the 70s,
80s, and 90s, when neighborhoods were leveled and the immigrant residents had
to find someplace else to live. In one area, once called Little Canada for the
French Canadian immigrants that lived there, there is a minor league baseball
stadium and nothing to mark where tenements once stood. Around the time those
buildings were destroyed, the city began celebrating the cultures and
ethnicities of the populace. At first, there was the Lowell Plan’s 1981 arts
and crafts festival; now, we have several ethnic and cultural celebrations
throughout the year from the Southeast Asian Water Festival to the Lowell Folk
Festival and the Africa Cup. That is not to say this city is perfect; it is to
say, it is a works in progress and by embracing the diversity of the people,
all of our lives can improve.
