Part 2: Dynamic Partnerships and the Role of Art in Revitalization

While Pittsfield Storefront Artist project was not intentionally designed to promote economic development, the natural outpouring of their efforts was attracting businesses.  It seems as if beautification of the space gave people motivation to return downtown.  This is an example of how artists can become social entrepreneurs: those who create opportunities in their neighborhood while earning a living (SIAP, Cultivating “Natural” Cultural Districts).  

Keynote speaker, Megan Wilden shared that one challenge of partnership with artists/an arts organization is to encourage without destroying the purity of the art.  In other words, when involving art with community development, the focus must always be creating art.  The partnership between the City of Pittsfield and artists seemed to reach an appropriate balance, because artists were cultivated to continue creating art, not attracting businesses.   Around this premise, the partnership provided fertile soil, because in addition to the presence of art, a sense of community was created among artists.  I think this sense of community was an added attraction for residents and businesses. 

University of Pennsylvania’s Social Impact of the Arts Project (SIAP) promotes a model of development integrating neighborhood residents with regional economy and civil society through aiding a transition from creative economy to creative society (Seifert and Stern, Culture and Urban Revitalization).  One way to achieve this is to create opportunities for artists, amateurs, and residents to collide; artists’ centers are an effective opportunity for this collision to occur.  Artists’ centers provide the community open access to the arts, classes, opportunities to mingle with artists and art lovers, mentoring, and useful networks for resource sharing (SIAP, Culture and Urban Revitalization).  Artists' centers make it more about relationships than transactions; thus creative society rather than economy.

Practically, how do artist’s centers revitalize communities?  Artists’ centers are so are embedded in the lives of community members that it provides: youth development through classes and mentoring, increased neighborhood safety through heavier foot traffic in the community, and improves local economy, as more foot traffic leads revenue for local businesses (Seifert and Stern, Culture and Urban Revitalization).  Moreover, stronger community relationships always generates greater community security among residents.

Cultivating the arts through partnerships in local communities is very effective as the arts continue to become more open and accessible to the general population.  The arts are powerful expressions of culture and experience, so it only seems natural that community revitalization engages art to empower community members and tell the neighborhood story.  Increased access has also uncovered the presence of organic art in low-income communities through anything from graffiti, to rap and spoken word, to resident gardens.  As stories are told, these organic artists are empowered to embrace their talent and use it towards personal, community and maybe even professional transformation.  

Resources:
Seifert, Susan, and Mark Stern. "Culture and Urban Revitalization: A Harvest Document." Social Impact of the Arts Project (January 2007). Web. 14 Sept. 2011. <http://www.sp2.upenn.edu/SIAP>.
Seifert, Susan, and Mark Stern. "Cultivating “Natural” Cultural Districts." Creativity and Change (September 2007). Web. 14 Sept. 2011. <http://www.trfund.com/resource/downloads/creativity/NaturalCulturalDistricts.pdf>.

Coffin Homes: Living in 15 Square Feet

This week CNN covered a story on something of which I was unaware: Coffin Homes.  “Hidden amid the multi-million dollar high-rise apartments and chic shopping malls of Hong Kong's urban centers are scores of tiny, unseen tenements -- some no bigger than coffins -- that many people call home… Nicknamed coffin homes for their physical similarities, the 15-square-foot enclosure is just one incarnation of the city's distinctive low-income housing alternatives. Others include the city's cage homes, which resemble livestock coops (Hong Kong’s Poorest Living in Coffin Homes, CNN).”  I challenge you to read this article and watch this video, which includes a walkthrough of a coffin home.  

As a developed country and classified as an advanced economy, Hong Kong is home to some of the wealthiest people in the world.  Despite these advances, a proportion of Hong Kong’s population are living in substandard housing; many who are productive citizens living off a substandard wage system.  


Owned by private landlords, the government in Hong Kong takes a “hands off” approach, as tax payer’s money should not be used for commercial endeavors.  While I see the government’s justification, part of me wonders whether renting conditions should be regulated.  On top of the outrageous cost for some of these units (range of $150-$1,400 a month per unit), the conditions are unsafe, as was shown with a recent Hong Kong fire that killed several coffin home dwellers.  Fire safety code violations are understandably common with these units.  Without limits and rules, it appears that people will do anything to make a buck.  While many in democratic countries consider government regulation evil, how can we justify allowing people to impose evil on the displaced? 


For now, most Americans reading this will think, “Wow, glad I don’t live in Hong Kong.”  But could this happen to us?  According to CNN, the existence of these living situations are caused by the “perfect (urban) storm: a combination of skyrocketing real-estate prices and arguably the biggest wealth gap in Asia” (CNN).   Considering the current economic conditions, real estate prices are skyrocketing, especially as the cost of living increases.  In the New York Times, an article was published talking about the newest census data in regards to wealth.  The conclusion: wealth disparities are continuing to grow.  In fact, “The declines have led to the largest wealth disparities in the 25 years that the [census] bureau has been collecting the data, according to the report (Recession Study Finds Hispanics Hit the Hardest, New York Times)”.  So real estate is skyrocketing and wealth disparities are rising.  Does this sound at all like the “perfect urban storm” to you? 


Some things to think about:

• Hong Kong landlords consider providing coffin homes noble, as this provides an alternative to homelessness.  What do you think of their justification? 
• How should this be handled in the United States, if landlords start renting out coffin homes here?
• Should there be government standards on rented housing?