Size Does Matter – Proximity is Essential:

variables influencing the success of cultural districts[i]

 Wayne Wilson B. A., M. A.

Executive Director, Kelowna Museum, British Columbia

As reflections of modernity and representing one of its outward manifestations (i.e. urban living) the recent emergence of Cultural Districts is arguably a pretty easy phenomenon to predict.[ii] For the cultural sector, they currently represent one of the richest opportunities to further our purposes – all with the blessing and support of both government and business. As Urban Tourism models continue to emerge and have at their centre new notions of “Place/Product Combinations,”[iii] Cultural Districts offer exciting potential.

 Historians often argue that each generation re-writes its history. As a Geographer, I would like to maintain that each generation also re-makes the landscape within which it lives. In the case of Cultural Districts, we are often engaging in a kind of landscape palimpsest in which we are over-writing the previous landscape with our own layer of meaning. As the captains of this cultural ship, it behoves us to pay attention to how that emergence unfolds and to ensure that we are found within the decision-makers’ circle. “The best way to control the future is to invent it yourself.” (R. Stekel?) 

The two founding considerations of this session grew out of my own academic interest in the Cultural District phenomenon. Built landscapes are, after all, one of the tangible manifestations of our collective values, attitudes and perceptions and our individual approach to them. They have also grown out of my own experience with a new Cultural District in Kelowna.  As a geographer, it seemed to me that when I distilled down the various characteristics of Cultural Districts, what emerged were considerations of Size and considerations of Proximity. Physically, they are perhaps the two most easily discernable characteristics of Cultural Districts. 

In the case of the former, most stakeholders generally maintain that some limit or control on the size of these areas has a direct and positive impact on their success[iv]; a position well supported by studies of other agglomeration economies.[v] High Tech centres and Industrial Parks come to mind. Size has a clear and direct impact on the scale and type of investment required by both government and the private sector. Equally important, control of size can facilitate the development of the District’s marketing imagery and message. For the public and for the stakeholders, size tends to facilitate the ready movement of people and goods. In the end, controlling size of the Cultural District may be the simplest and easiest way to manage the space for both the supply and the demand side – a very practical application of the aphorism “divide and conquer”. 

In the case of the latter, which is perhaps merely a corollary of the former, physical proximity of venues that constitute the Cultural District ease much more than the movement of tourists and visitors.  Notions of “closeness” almost certainly have a positive impact on the area’s innovative capacity. In industrial settings and in the high-tech sector, for example, proximity is seen to engender “… a competitive and entrepreneurial environment that enhances growth.”[vi] Moreover, it has long been recognized that, “… the urban agglomeration of firms increases their productivity.”[vii]

If it is fair to see size and proximity as “given” characteristics of Cultural Districts, then the question quickly turns to what other influences come to bear on their success. Many urban settings could boast these given characteristics but, in all fairness, some are far more successful than others. A review of some of the current literature and an examination of the experience of planners, politicians and cultural partners reveals a catalogue or checklist of variables that influence the success of Cultural Districts in their broadest sense. In many ways, the variables seem to be found under one of these headings – Image, Investment, and Interdependence.

Image

“Sell the sizzle, not the steak” is one of marketing’s most poignant revelations. It has particular relevance to the success of Cultural Districts because it helps reveal one of their most enduring characteristics – authenticity – and authenticity in this case is largely the invocation of as many senses as possible. Clearly, then, building a new image of authenticity or nurturing an existing one is vital at the outset. [viii]

For planners and others, the phrase “Sense of Place” is most useful in a discussion of Cultural Districts and their authenticity. For those Districts grounded in historico/cultural contexts, the areal image is often pre-set. Street layouts and transportation networks offer interesting cues and clues to the rhythms and patterns of past activities and lives, and these can be interpreted to significant advantage for image-building. Vernacular architecture can be equally useful. Its scale, design, set backs, and materials combine to give the District historical and cultural legitimacy. Overall it can also be helpful in establishing design criteria for in-fill development. Place names – district-wide or taken from street names, alleys, business functions etc. – have frequently been used successfully to help establish or strengthen the mental maps visitors carry in their heads. (Granville Island, Vancouver, Cannery Lane, Kelowna, Pike Place Market, Seattle)

 Historico/cultural contexts are often replete with a multi-sensual palette from which to draw general or specific images - landscape can often easily expand to include smellscape and soundscape and tastescape. Perhaps most important in this regard is a kind of momentum that can be invoked to carry forward this new use of an old urban space. 

For those Cultural Districts that are somewhat more contrived, the development of an “image” is no less important. Tourism researchers maintain that success is based on    “… the condition that much attention is paid to the creation of a sense of place which is, or appears to be authentic.”[ix] Assuming a critical mass of cultural venues in order to be considered a Cultural District, the image-building task can manifest itself in many ways. Certainly marketing has a vital role, but other considerations can help nurture the new contrived or invented image as well. Signage and way-finding schemes can guide both the body and the mind of the visitor. They can also reinforce the District’s image in more subtle ways. (I.e. through the interpretation of the historical and or cultural setting) Similarly, attention to streetscape design and its implementation can help strengthen the District’s broader image. Everything from garbage cans and tree species to walkway finishes and outdoor seating can work together.  District-wide programming and festivals/events begin to establish a cohesive image. At the same time, they can work toward engraining a seasonal rhythm to District activities.

In both approaches to image-building or branding, the exercise seems to be one of mining the resources available. In historico/cultural settings the business of image-building is arguably most easily managed by interpreting the setting and its constituent parts. In more manufactured Cultural Districts, the business of image-building carries all the risks and the benefits of an unencumbered past or future. Critical in both is the need to plan for success from the beginning for, as one researcher noted, “In the process of developing and planning tourism products, selecting the most interesting artefacts and sites and assigning a particular interpretation is of critical importance and is often irreversible.”[x] 

Investment 

Multivariate in its nature, investment is critical and involves both the supply side and the demand side for cultural experiences. Public sector, private sector, non-governmental organizations and the public must all be ready and willing participants in the development and on-going viability of a Cultural District. Investments of time, money, sentiment, and creative energy must combine to predict success. 

In terms of government investment, both politicians and civil servants must speak to and demonstrate their commitment to the development and maintenance of a successful Cultural District. Together, this group exercises jurisdictional control over every Cultural District, and in this regard they provide an enabling function on a number of fronts. Infrastructure enhancements are often at the forefront of these efforts. Provision of parking facilities and access roads, construction of services corridors and options, and placement of appropriate traffic control (including transit and its scheduling) help ensure efficient flow of goods and visitors.  At both the pedestrian level and for vehicular traffic, streetscape planning and way-finding/signage issues can be led only by government. In consideration of the needs of the private sector and of cultural institutions and artists, zoning amendments and innovations can become important barriers to overcome.

Once established, Cultural Districts can benefit from on-going government consideration in areas of by-law enforcement, their exemptions, and other policy writing, especially as it relates to District-wide programming and event/festival planning. For cultural institutions, governments’ expanding interest in public-private partnerships may also hold opportunities to move toward more sustainable funding models. (I.e. Theatre companies managing community theatre centres) Finally, in order to move beyond rhetoric and to demonstrate their commitment more tangibly, these government agents must be seen to attend the area for formal occasions and out of private and personal interest.

Underlying this government investment (at all levels – federal, provincial/state, regional/county and municipal) is a planning function that orchestrates the many and sometimes disparate interests at stake. From inception through to a long-term sustainable future, politicians and civil servants must establish and enforce a planning cycle or mechanism that brings the stakeholders together and that evaluates the initiatives in play.

Often lying between government and the private sector are agencies such as Tourism Authorities and Business Improvement Areas. Both of these agencies have the opportunity to lead and/or offer equal participation in the success of Cultural Districts. Tourism Authorities often invest staff resources and funds to nurture tourist service functions and marketing initiatives that enhance a product mix that strengthens the financial position of their membership. Business Improvement Areas can bring similar benefits, particularly as they relate to event and programming support or to the organization of initiatives such as “clean and safe”. (I.e. safety audits, graffiti removal programs etc.) 

The business sector, from land developer to independent operator, brings a commitment of time and creative planning to its role in the Cultural District, and they invest money on the implementation of those plans. Theirs is perhaps the simplest part of this equation to understand, and that understanding might be best summed up in the phrase - Return on Investment. If a positive return is perceived or can be demonstrated by a “pro forma”, then not only will investment flow, but the private sector will often mobilize its government influence. In addition, their work on Chambers of Commerce/Boards of Trade or on various civic committees will come in to play.

 Cultural institutions must step beyond the comfort of their independent setting to embrace a new and multi-tiered set of opportunities. Learning from business and cued by supportive government agencies and programs, they must invest their own earned revenues to their own ends and to the organized and chaotic collaborative initiatives that present themselves. The Cultural District setting also seems to require cultural institutions to invest in other areas. Human resources investment must expand beyond hiring new staff to include areas of professional development, time management, and career/personal coaching. Research and Development activities, creative exercises by nature, must be invested in new directions that might include untried collaborations with artists, public-private partnerships, or adapting business approaches to more traditional Museums/Gallery functions.

Artists play a special role in the success of Cultural Districts. They are, at once, businesses and the creators of much of the District’s dynamic flavour. They are, in many ways, the new “authenticity” of the District. Like others, they invest money. Unlike others, they seem less encumbered by the need for order and structure in their investment, and the other stakeholders seem to know intuitively that, “Culture is in no way dependent on tourism, however, tourism can be dependent on culture. Regardless, culture will happen, with or without tourism.”[xi] Artists, their work and their work spaces are often the genesis of Cultural Districts, and as they grow to encompass other community and tourism based priorities, artists would argue they invest their patience in significant amounts.

Finally, the public must attend, whether pulled by the authenticity of the locale or pushed by the more subtle influences of keen marketing initiatives around the Cultural District image created. Their committed investment is ultimately gauged by attendance at cultural events, through cash register sales at cultural venues and their collateral support businesses,  (I.e. restaurants, gift shops, and art supply stores ), and by a more anecdotal representation. (I.e. letters to the editor, comments in guest books, and word-of-mouth)

What is clearly the most curious part of the investment in the Cultural District is that, for all partners, there is no licence for access to the heritage and culture milieu. No individual, group, institution or agency owns heritage and culture.

Interdependence

On a little more metaphysical level, there is clear recognition of the need for and value of a healthy interdependence among all of the partners and especially among the cultural providers.[xii] An emerging “corporate psychology” (for lack of better term) of collaboration and co-operation smacks of the counter-culture movement of the 1960s and it provides a fecund setting that strengthens the image of authenticity heralded by so many Cultural Districts. Visual arts, performing arts, heritage – all creative businesses by nature and all driven by increasingly intuitive administrations – are uniquely positioned to control much of their destiny within the Cultural District model. Perhaps it is Keynesian Economics that pushes artists into interdependent scenarios; and perhaps it is the lure of artistic expression that pulls the private sector and government into Cultural District partnerships. Regardless of the root of this involvement, all seem to concur that there is value in the interdependence that comes both in the form of organized development strategies and in the form of apparently chaotic artistic expression.

 In more practical terms, while stakeholders espouse independence, Cultural Districts are settings predisposed to sharing of various talent pools. Additionally, programming synergies hold huge potential, resources and materials can be acquired through scale economies, and strategies for growth and sustainability can flow easily and quickly between partners.

Conclusion

For Museums, Art Galleries and Historic Sites there is value in remembering, “Safety in numbers”, but the formula for success is far less straightforward. Numerous partners with varying agendas, driven by differing corporate structures and supported by a variety of institutional capabilities, all brought into close proximity in a Cultural District is a wonderfully frightening exercise in consensus building. In Cultural Districts, the positive potential of the outcomes is almost irresistible. Managing Image and Investment and Interdependence can help foretell a successful outcome if brought together in an appropriately sized Cultural District that demonstrates a useful proximity of venues.

What may be most revealing in the study of Cultural Districts will come from investing in a stronger understanding of the benchmarks that differentiate the various stakeholder sectors. Visual Arts, Performing Arts, Institutions, Government, and the Private Sector operate the Cultural District, but to assume their market and goal and intent are common would be folly. The size of their collective space is common, their proximity is fairly assumed – the degree of their success is often dependent on the interplay of Image, Investment and Interdependence.

Endnotes