Role of arts in urban revitalization

Below is an excerpt of a talk given at The Peabody Institute Forum. Speakers included Mayor Michael Bloomberg, Dr. William Brody, President of Johns Hopkins University,Adam Gordon, Editor-in-chief of The Next American City.

Mayor Michael Bloomberg:
We’re here to consider the role of arts in urban revitalization. Probably can’t have a better example of that than the Peabody campus. It’s right in the middle of Baltimore. It’s not quite as famous as Camden Yards, but it is getting there.

Arts and arts organizations seriously are a vital component of a city’s cultural life, particularly for the diverse communities that live there. They are also magnets for people that come from outside: tourists, of course, but also talented and ambitious dreamers.

Art defines our lives. Art pumps us up and makes us complete and gives us something to put a smile on our faces about, as well as gets the brain cells to keep going. When you talk about the pulse of the city, in many ways you really are talking about the artists that live there and the artists that work there. Art is one of the ways in which ethnic communities express themselves. Not everybody has had the kind of education that lets them write well. There are people who just instinctively have the ability to communicate in other ways. I think that great cities recognize this.

Art is about economics as well. I don’t think there’s any question why New York City’s tourism is the way it is. I was with a very well known clothes designer last night at dinner, and he had a friend coming to town who said, “Can you get me a hotel room?” He said both he and his secretary dialed for an hour before they finally found one room. New York City is full, and the reason the hotels are full, the reason the tourists come there, is because they want to see the museums, the performing arts centers–the tiny museums and not just the big ones. Art brings in millions and millions of dollars to any city. It transforms whole neighborhoods.

One of the great challenges we have is to bring artists into communities that are down on their heels and have the artists transform the communities–and that works–but as Mayor O’Malley knows, the great challenge is how do you keep it so the artists are able to live there as these neighborhoods become magnets and more and more people want to move in and drive the starving artists out. There’s no easy answer to that. What is clear is that culture changes neighborhoods, and that all of these things take money to do. There’s no question the arts have to be supported. They have to be supported by private philanthropy as well as public philanthropy. Public philanthropy is great, but it’s private philanthropy that really lets people be totally creative. If we didn’t have private philanthropy we’d be back in the old masters days. We certainly never would have had something as blasphemous as impressionism. Medicine–the same thing is true: you would never try anything new because the public’s money can’t do that.

I think the stakes are very high. If you falter in your community or in your city and you walk away from the arts, it can be generations before you can turn that around. Once it becomes unfashionable to go someplace it stays unfashionable for a long time. It is also a very competitive world. Mayor O’Malley has got to get people to move here; Mayor Bloomberg’s got to get people to move to New York. People have choices today that they never had before.