"So, what is the point of public art? ” This question, posted online by Voice of San Diego's Kelly Bennett, came in response to the city of San Diego’s recent pull from public art funding; after its release on Twitter the post quickly turned viral. Responses to the post ranged from views of public art as superfluous and its place in the public sphere as luxury, to public art as necessary for community well-being, safety, and cohesiveness.
Many of us believe in the arts as integral to the livable community— but when measuring out our federal dollars, the arts are usually the first to go. But what if we could prove that in addition to instilling neighborhood pride and value in our public space, public art could actually serve as a deterrent for crime and violence?
Real Estate may save us after all, say strategists Christopher Leinberger and Patrick Doherty, but only if it responds to a growing demand for walkable, dynamic neighborhoods. Real estate represents 35% of our economy’s asset base, so its recovery is essential to the country’s “economic renaissance.” However, write Leinberger and Doherty in a recent article, changing housing preferences driven by Millennials and aging baby boomers will make that recovery look quite different than previous decades:
In the fight for livability, sometimes advocates can forget about those who are happily living in environments that others would deem “unlivable”: sprawling, car-dependent suburbs. If it’s all about making our lives more livable, “shouldn’t we be able to choose the sprawling suburbs if we want to?” asked a participant at the Partners’ “Building Livable Communities” Forum in September 2010. Well, yes, replied the panelists, but it’s not that easy. “Choosing” sprawl is not always the free choice that many believe it to be.
A lively art studio transformed from a previously vacant, three-acre lot into a wonderful cultural resource and an educational tool for youth around Chicago.
