The Big Crinkly in Bryant Park in 1993

Among institutional funders, “creative placemaking” seems to be all the rage. But do we all mean the same thing when we employ the phrase? And the use by many of those funders of “metrics” to analyze the “impact” of their “investments” is equally au courant. But what possible metrics could determine the efficacy of such a thing as creative placemaking, and is the normal grant period an appropriate period of time the measurement? I have a pretty strong impression the whole area is pretty murky. Even the names or some of the leading programs in the area are confusing, conflating the words “art,” “space” and “place.” What’s going on here?

I’ve been involved in quite a few attempts to employ arts programming to restore and improve public spaces, as well as to stimulate economic activity. Some have been hugely successful – in fact essential to the projects where they have been used: in other cases, not so much. The one quality that I can put my finger on that has distinguished the impactful projects from the lame ones is “critical mass.” I can also say, with a high degree of certainty, that these arts-led initiatives have taken more a one year to have any meaningful impact, and in some cases as long as five years. Solid placemaking practice, as I’ve said consistently, requires patience and consistency. Creative placemaking is no exception. Continue reading →

Let me say, briefly, to my many diverse friends this morning (from my hotel room in Ohio), that where we find ourselves today is what our constitution was specifically constructed to address. Our government was organized not to be a vehicle for effective public administration (much to the frustration of Alexander Hamilton), but to protect the rights of individuals and political (and religious) minorities and to constrain the power of “factions.” Their great concern was the disappropriation of property of the few by the many — to constrain the tyranny of the demagogue and the majority. At the same time, living in a democracy means what it is about — rule by the majority. The power of that majority has to be respected in order to produce lasting social change. Gandhi and Dr. King understood this. In order to make political progress the hearts and minds of that majority must be moved. The politics of divisiveness produced the political result we now face. The way forward is not more division. It is to persuade, to appeal to agape — our connections as people. A very large number of people in this country have demonstrated that they resent having their values and culture belittled. While it is true that a cynical politics appealing to people’s worst instincts for decades have persuaded them that they are far worse off than they actually are, both politically and economically; more fundamentally, they consider themselves hard-working and decent; and have lashed out at being indicted as racists, homophobes and misogynists by coastal elites — people they regard themselves as being different from. As hard as it may be to imagine, we need to work to appeal to their humanity and move them — not to plot how to beat them politically the next time because of our moral and intellectual superiority. It is that kind of thinking that got us where we are. The republic will survive.

St Luke’s Chamber Ensemble

Like Yogi Berra, Holly Whyte is often remembered for his tautological aphorisms: “People tend to sit where there are places to sit,” “What attracts people most, it would appear, is other people,” and “If you want to seed a place with activity, put out food.” I have one of my own to add “You can generate activity in a public space by allowing activity in a public space.”

I’ve noticed over the years that the first reaction from people who control public spaces to requests to use the space is generally an emphatic “No.” There appear to be two motivations for this automatic reaction. The first is a fear of risk and the liability that might arise from it. The second is a desire not to lose control over the space. People seem to be empowered by control over space and enjoy asserting that power. Resist the urge! In retrospect, one of the most important unplanned reasons for the success of Bryant Park is that in the early years I said “Yes” to just about everyone who wanted to do something in the park. Activity in the park created a virtuous cycle. The more stuff we had going on in the space, the more people came to use it and the more other people wanted to use it and be there or be associated with it. I believe my colleague, Bob Gregory, at Campus Martius in Detroit has had the same experience. Continue reading →

Bryant Park Grill Exterior

We’ve come a long way in our view of the impact of restaurants in public space. When I began working in Bryant Park in 1991, most park and community advocates viewed restaurants as anathema. They were seen as commercial activity and therefore as forbidden from public space. We’ve now learned that some kinds of commercial activity are actually invaluable in animating public spaces – including restaurants, food kiosks, food trucks, craft markets and most recently, night markets. In fact, in many public space (and downtown) revitalization projects, food service is seen as something of a silver bullet.

Unfortunately, it isn’t. Restaurants are difficult and expensive to develop. Most restaurants are unsuccessful. In my experience, even the most successful restaurants in formerly under-invested places take years to be cashflow positive. Food kiosks are even more difficult to make work. Continue reading →