Ana Luiza Pena, Spring 2014
Extract from The Robins Project PDR – The New School for Public Engagement
Summary
Former Creative Placemaking projects tried to replicate the success of lively cities, encouraging artists and communities to build places that attracted and spurred economic development. However, because practitioners were not grounded in principles of equity and social justice, many of those places were transformed into gentrified areas, expelling the original residents from their places and deepening social inequalities. Therefore, practitioners and theorists have been developing ideas and evaluation tools to circumvent this situation and propose ways for artists and communities to work together to create a space of belonging, that promotes equity. An equitable agenda for Creative Placemaking should include regard for culture; a deep understanding of the politics of belonging and dis-belonging of a place; youth and community engagement; and partnerships.
What is Creative Placemaking?
Creative Placemaking is a term created by the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA). It describes the idea that a vibrant set of opportunities and amenities for creative expression, creating a space for the arts to flourish and become an important aspect of a community’s life, can lead to regional economic prosperity.
According to Markusen and Gadwa, “In Creative Placemaking, partners from public, private, non-profit, and community sectors strategically shape the physical and social character of a neighborhood, town, city, or region around arts and cultural activities. Creative Placemaking animates public and private spaces, rejuvenates structures and streetscapes, improves local business viability and public safety, and brings diverse people together to celebrate, inspire, and be inspired.”[i]
Through the employment of arts in its multiple facets, Creative Placemaking projects became catalysts for the revitalization of cities suffering from economic crisis and its results, such as shrinking population, increased number of vacant buildings, decrease in job opportunities and so on. In this way, Creative Placemaking is a tool that many government officials, nonprofit organizations and the private sector have been using to reignite economic development in their neighborhoods, cities and regions.
However, there is a new aspect of Creative Placemaking that is being analyzed more recently. In the last years, placemaking practitioners, foundations, government and communities have come to understand that, unattended (without further analysis of outcomes and not guided by principles of social justice), Creative Placemaking can and has become an issue in many localities when it comes to equity. David Ian Moss calls this “The Artist Colonization Process”[ii]. According to him, this process starts with “artists move in” and ends with “developers take over space, pricing artist out of market.” Neeraj Mehta goes deeper in the matter adding that “[w]hen it relates to Creative Placemaking, we need to add to the debate a focus on equity by always asking the question of who benefits from our investments, activities and strategies.”[iii] As very well described by Bedoya, “If Creative Placemaking activities support the politics of dis-belonging through acts of gentrification, racism, real estate speculations all in the name of neighborhood revitalization, then it betrays the democratic ideal of having an equitable and just civil society.”[iv] Therefore, Debra Webb has found in her research that a result of the “misuse” of Creative Placemaking is that its practice has generated vocal skepticism[v] in many communities.
This all means that, besides the economics, there is a major goal to be reached through Creative Placemaking: social benefits that meet the needs of each and every group in a community and that support the building of a more democratic society. Bedoya says the goal of Creative Placemaking is to advance humanity.[vi]
Webb concludes, “I assert that highly skilled creative practitioners have the responsibility and capacity to examine institutional racism, social inequities and cultural intolerances through arts-based civic engagement initiatives. I am in full support of re-imagining and rebuilding our neighborhoods with ambitious and innovative vision. However, it is not enough to inject a vacant lot with quirky art happenings, or develop an artist live/work collective in an old, dank warehouse district. Before we can envision placemaking, we must first acknowledge our legacy of place-taking and seek to establish places of connection, social equity and economic opportunity for everyone.”[vii]
In light of this recent comprehension of the roles of creative placemaking in a community, a question remains as to what does Equitable Creative Placemaking look like? What are its components and how can it be implemented? The next part of this study aims to address these questions.
What is Equitable Creative Placemaking?
Equity
It is important in our context to define what we call equity. In her book, The Just City, Susan Fainstein defines equity in the following manner, “Equity refers to a distribution of both material and nonmaterial benefits derived from public policy that does not favor those who are already better off at the beginning. Further, it does not require that each person be treated the same but rather that treatment be appropriate.”[viii] That’s the definition adopted in this PDR.
Equitable Creative Placemaking
According to Diana Boros, “Truly transcendent visionary art opens the way to freedom of thought, real conceptual change, and an expanded worldview that extends individual concerns into concern for the greater human community.”[ix]
As such, visionary artists and engaged community have the power to change the reality of their communities in multiple ways, from physical infrastructure to deep social issues. Creative Placemaking can and must play an important role in the equitable development and revitalization of neighborhoods. Further, Bedoya states that Creative Placemaking is not merely a development strategy, “but as a series of actions that build spatial justice, healthy communities and sites of imaginations.”[x] Hence, this is the foundation for Equitable Creative Placemaking.
In this context, Debra Webb recommends that an expanded framework of placemaking include “1) placemaking that is guided by civic engagement activities that foster cultural stewardship; 2) placemaking that spurs systemic social change and youth empowerment; and 3) placemaking that articulates a shared aesthetic of belonging”[xi].
To summarize, there are five main components that must be considered when promoting, implementing and maintaining Equitable Creative Placemaking: culture, belonging and dis-belonging, community participation, youth engagement, and partnerships. I will further analyze these five components.
Culture
Huntington and Harrison define culture as “values, attitudes, beliefs, orientations and underlying assumptions”[xii]. Further, the root of the word “culture” has to do with “cultivate” – something that is planted and that bears fruit. In this way, culture can be understood as the use of current assets (history, local identity, human capital and knowledge, etc.) to produce something that even though has characteristics of the “mother plant”, it is in itself an altogether new thing. A new plant – or social environment – that produces its own new fruits and bears its own new seeds. Hence, culture is both the means and the product. It is a continuous and unending process that shapes people and communities.
Knowing the aspects of the culture of a specific place is a very important step in developing an Equitable Creative Placemaking initiative. It is essential to empower the community to build the identity of a place.
Belonging and Dis-belonging
Bedoya affirms, “… you must feel you belong. Before there is the vibrant street, one needs an understanding of the social dynamics on that street – the politics of belonging and dis-belonging at work in placemaking in civil society.”[xiii] According to him, placemaking in city and neighborhood spaces enacts identity and activities “that allow personal memories, cultural histories, imagination and feelings to enliven the sense of ‘belonging’ through human and spatial relationships.” Therefore, “belonging and dis-belonging” is deeply rooted in the relationship between a person and a place. It is the identity of a space, comprising its historic and social aspects – and how those characteristics relate to a person, that is what makes them feel (or not) that they belong, that they are part of that place and the place is part of who they are.
This understanding allows for what Bedoya calls “cultural and civic belonging”, which is based on a series of relevant inquiries, “how to create it [belonging]; how to understand and accommodate cultural difference in matters of civic participation; how to enhance the community’s understanding of citizenship beyond the confines of leisure pursuits and consumption; how to help the citizens of a place achieve strength and prosperity through equity and civility.”[xiv]
In his article “‘Social Cohesion’ Becomes an Official Part of Durban City Policy”[xv], Greg Arde gives an amazing example of arts and public policies addressing social inequalities. Only 20 years ago, Durban, in South Africa, had its residents segregated as apartheid defined public areas, neighborhoods and private buildings to serve each racial group. Now the society still fights to heal the social wounds left by such a period. That’s why Thembinkosi Ngcobo, head of the city’s Parks, Recreation and Culture Department, decided to help it along. Through public programs and spaces, his team is working to bring together different sectors of society and build a stronger city. For example, they have been investing in public areas such as museums and libraries, and offering free exercise classes in parks – making social cohesion part of the Durban’s Integrated Development Plan. Ngcobo understood that the attempt of the government to heal the scars of apartheid through investment in infrastructure is not enough – there needs to be a mindset shift. In his words, “We believe that in the midst of poverty and developmental challenges there can be social cohesion and we’ve pushed this in everything we do.” Illa Thompson, an arts publicist in Durban talks about this initiative, saying that “It adds to Durban’s hardiness. It means the city can be strong and healthy. Art-makers grapple with their role in social cohesion, but they know that our history informs our present. One artist said recently that to flourish, artists are emerging from a post-apartheid space to record and inspire, and to protect the future.” She also says “It advances solutions because arts practitioners question and challenge and help to move the city forward and address social justice issues.” Finally, Ngcobo adds “Resilient cities are those that don’t deny their problems. Problems bring people together, they forge communities that confront the future. A city can have the most amazing infrastructure, but if its people aren’t in harmony it can’t move forward confidently.”
In light of this, Creative Placemaking practitioners must understand how race, class, poverty, and discrimination and other social aspects shape place – understand the politics of belonging or dis-belonging – and how these are crucial to construct a healthy democracy and citizenship that will animate our public spaces and placemaking interventions.
Community Participation
In their book, Placemaking: The Art and Practice of Building Communities, Lynda Schneekloth and Robert Shibley argue that artists have the potential to affect positive social change by being active civic engagement initiators through arts-based interventions. [xvi]
If creative placemaking is the creation and maintenance of a place that reflects the identity of a community, that has its roots in the local culture and that promotes belonging, then one can easily perceive that there is no Creative Placemaking without community engagement. And, by all means, “community” should not be understood only as those that are always represented in community events but also, and even more especially, all those who are affected by local policies and interventions and who, often, are not part of the construction of common spaces – youth, minority groups, low-income communities, elders, and so on. Therefore, community, as a whole, is essential to the implementation of Equitable Creative Placemaking projects.
Giving legitimacy to different voices in a community as well as different knowledge and understanding of a place makes the practice of Placemkaing possible, inclusive and comprehensive. “… [B]efore professional knowledge about design, planning, engineering, and so on, can be understood, it must be situated and transformed in relationship to the people in places.”[xvii]
Schneekloth and Shibley outline an approach for creative interventions that are based in community participation. This approach includes 1) making a “dialogic space” by facilitating respectful and open discussion about place and placemaking; 2) conducting exercises of “confirmation” (appreciating and examining aspects that are working) and “interrogation” (critically analyzing conventions and challenges); and 3) employing the “framing action” by constantly (and throughout the process) allowing these insights to guide and inform subsequent actions.[xviii]
Youth Engagement
Grace Lee Boggs quotes Martin Luther King, “What we need now in our ‘dying cities’, he said, are ways to provide young people with similar opportunities to engage in ‘direct self-transforming and structure-transforming action.’”[xix]
Youth engagement is essential to guarantee sustainable Equitable Creative Placemaking. Sustainable meaning a project that can be a continuous instrument of transformation throughout the years and that is sustained by the means and the results of this process of transformation of the community.
In her book The Next American Revolution: Sustainable Activism for the Twenty-First Century, Boggs gives an amazing example of youth engagement in Detroit – a city that has also been fighting for decades to overcome deep social and economic problems. She talks about an Initiative called Detroit Summer, described as “a multicultural, intergenerational youth program/movement to rebuild, redefine, and respirit Detroit from the ground up.” She goes on to say that the urban-youth from this blighted city became a part of the solution to Detroit’s problems. When Detroit Summer started in the early 90’s, they combined physical forms of work with workshops and intergenerational dialogues on how to rebuild their city, further expanding their minds and educating them in community engagement. Now, she says, the organization continues to tap the creative energies of urban youth, “marshaling their interest and skills in hip-hop and slam poetry, it advances a critical dialogue about burning social issues by empowering youth to express themselves through alternative forms of media.”
Offering young people an opportunity to better understand themselves and their roles in the community, while engaging them in actions that bring growth to themselves and, ultimately, to their neighborhoods and cities is crucially important.
Partnership
According to Markusen and Gadwa, “[i]nitiators, politicians, city staffers, businesses, philanthropists, and arts organizations are all actors in successful arts-based revitalization efforts. But it is the partnerships forged among them, and with state and federal government agencies, that have proved central to successful outcomes.” [xx]
Creative Placemaking projects are not supposed to be built in a vacuum, but are part of a context and framed according to local needs and expectations. Partnerships are, therefore, essential to building Equitable Creative Placemaking. Hence, it is important that such projects partner with local initiatives.
Further, to partner also with regional and federal organizations makes it possible to create a network of knowledge where practices, successes, as well as, difficulties can be shared and worked upon.
Endnotes:
[i] Markusen, A. and Gadwa, A., “Creative Placemaking,” National Endowment for the Arts (2010).
[ii] Moss, Ian D. “Creative Placemaking Has an Outcomes Problem.” Createquity (2012).
[iii] Mehta, Neeraj. “The Question All Creative Placemakers Should Ask.” Next City (2012).
[iv] Bedoya, Roberto. “Creative Placemaking and the Politics of Belonging and Dis-Belonging.” Arts in a Changing America (2012).
[v] Webb, Debra. “Placemaking and Social Equity: Expanding the Framework of Creative Placemaking.” Artivate: A Journal of Entrepreneurship in the Arts (2014).
[vi] Bedoya, Roberto. “Creative Placemaking and the Politics of Belonging and Dis-Belonging.” Arts in a Changing America (2012).
[vii] Webb, Debra. “Placemaking and Social Equity: Expanding the Framework of Creative Placemaking.” Artivate: A Journal of Entrepreneurship in the Arts (2014).
[viii] Fainstein, Susan S. The Just City. (Ithaca: Cornell UP, 2010), 36.
[ix] Boros, Diana. Creative rebellion for the twenty-first century: The importance of public and interactive art to political life in America. (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2012), 142.
[x] Bedoya, Roberto. “Creative Placemaking and the Politics of Belonging and Dis-Belonging.” Arts in a Changing America (2012).
[xi] Webb, Debra. “Placemaking and Social Equity: Expanding the Framework of Creative Placemaking.” Artivate: A Journal of Entrepreneurship in the Arts (2014).
[xii] Huntington, Samuel P., and Lawrence E. Harrison. Culture Matters: How Values Shape Human Progress. (New York: Basic, 2000), xv.
[xiii] Bedoya, Roberto. “Creative Placemaking and the Politics of Belonging and Dis-Belonging.” Arts in a Changing America (2012).
[xiv] Bedoya, Roberto. “Creative Placemaking and the Politics of Belonging and Dis-Belonging.” Arts in a Changing America (2012).
[xv] Arde, Greg. ““Social Cohesion” Becomes an Official Part of Durban City Policy.” Next City. Web. 27 Apr. 2014.
<http://nextcity.org/daily/entry/social-cohesion-becomes-an-official-part-of-durban-city-policy>.
[xvi] Schneekloth, Lynda H., and Robert G. Shibley. Placemaking: The Art and Practice of Building Communities. (New York: Wiley, 1995).
[xvii] Schneekloth, Lynda H., and Robert G. Shibley. Placemaking: The Art and Practice of Building Communities. (New York: Wiley, 1995).
[xviii] Schneekloth, Lynda H., and Robert G. Shibley. Placemaking: The Art and Practice of Building Communities. (New York: Wiley, 1995).
[xix] Boggs, Grace Lee., and Scott Kurashige. The next American Revolution: Sustainable Activism for the Twenty-first Century. (Berkeley, CA: U of California, 2011), 96.
[xx] Markusen, A. and Gadwa, A., “Creative Placemaking,” National Endowment for the Arts (2010).
integralcitywarren.wordpress.com 