If only it were as simple as urinating on every street corner to demarcate what properly belongs in what particular district. I continue to become agitated every time I run across an article that states a specific neighborhood is re-branding themselves as a particular district, mostly because they are all competing for the same district title, the vacuous "arts district".
From an urban standpoint well defined districts can initialize growth in a variety of ways. The first and foremost is that by offering a destination of similar retail/experience typologies visitors who realize they are in the mood for "something" but are not sure exactly "what" can visit a certain location with relative certainty that they will stumble across what they are looking for. By not becoming too specific with boundary relationships these districts also allow for an area's perimeter to ebb and flow depending on market of goods/experiences being sold within the district (such as an antique district or entertainment district).
Financial districts are usually extremely rigid with their boundaries because visitors have an expectation for what will be experienced and Financial Institutions gain legitimacy through longevity. Since financial institutions are typically comprised of functions enclosed within one particular office there isn't much "window shopping", instead visitors typically arrive with a specific portion or business of the district in mind as a destination. They take care of their business and leave. The collection of financial districts arose from the historical precedence of having to discuss face to face with your financiers and business partners who may have been from competing institutions. Nowadays the financial district exists because we expect it to, there is a historical precedent of bank and money market buildings that we have been conditioned to see in any burgeoning downtown. While not necessary a financial district still allows for competitors to meet over lunch and drinks and talk about how they are spending everyone else's money. It is a luxury and an expectation and shares infrastructure (parking, access, etc) similar to and possibly with a local business district which has evolved under closely similar terms.
Central Business Districts are typically speculative office structures that were built based upon perceived amenities and shared infrastructure to then be leased out for profit, clustered around office headquarters (usually named buildings) for corporations. While generally located in a downtown location recent market values have made the ubiquitous "suburban office park" model more profitable generally due to cheaper land values, tax abatements and freedom from the "perceived" dangers of an urban environment. While not necessarily a district, the office park model does fit most of the criteria laid out for calling itself one however for the reasons of this diatribe I will concentrate on the Central Business District. The Central Business District, in conjunction with the Financial District was the reason for the major urban boons. By locating workers in one centralized location offices were able to use economies of scale as well as ease of communication to keep businesses running efficiently. Most Central Business Districts also housed headquarters for many of the major retailers in the Retail Districts which would weave in and out of the Central Business District creating a symbiotic relationship of downtown occupancy and livelihood. The Retail Districts and the Central Business Districts were inseparable until recent years when the advent of the shopping mall and the growth of the suburbs drove much of downtown retail from the urban core.
Manufacturing Districts were typically segregated from the rest of the urban core, locating themselves based upon ease of access to transport and raw materials. There was little daily interaction between the other districts and the Manufacturing District as working hours and the typical uses were much different. Manufacturing Districts were able to capitalize on a burgeoning urban center to draw its labor force yet would sometimes relocate these very citizens to grow onto occupied land adjacent to rivers or open fields that would be needed for business expansion. Manufacturing was also a major income generator for many regions and was therefore able to yield tremendous power in shaping the encroaching city.
Now, the Arts District. The most fluid and short lived of all the districts. Typically the Arts District is an "abandoned" area, left over from the Manufacturing, Business Districts or ethnic communities to be occupied at little or no cost by those studying or working in the creative arts fields. These area/structures offer large, undecorated and raw spaces to be transformed by the occupant to fit the occupant's vision. They are typically closely off the beaten path adding to the allure of "subversion" that would add to the inferred "creative ability" of the artist to "see things differently than everyone else". While infrastructure in terms of transit of people and goods were important these Art District's typically fostered a strong sense of community as true spaces where people would live and work.
The major concern with the Art's District is at once dangerous and exciting. When the area becomes important enough to make financial sense for development, whether to capitalize on the existing artists or create the sense of arts for the economically mobile to seem part of, the district will then face gentrification. While it was possible to surmise that some of the tenants had purchased their structures to rehabilitate and make livable it would be even easier to accept that those that could not afford the gentrification were then evicted and forced to find new homes. Art Districts will then be transformed into condos or live/work lofts (titles which still confuse me) and priced well above the previous rents in an attempt to allure those that could afford it into an existing creative district without the realization that the newcomers were in fact displacing those that had given the area it's creative fervor. It almost becomes worrisome when a new neighborhood is called an "art's district" if only because the next logical step would be the removal of the artists. While it makes some financial sense to chase after a Creative District title (since it is difficult to disprove what isn't a creative field and people seem willing to pay more for the opportunity to rub elbows with creative people) it seems a tragic misnomer to constantly push away those that created the area's new history in the first place.
While the district brand for any area is understandable, the question should arise what the area hopes to do once accepting any sort of district title. Is an honest effort to be made to continue the original intent or are districts almost a sort of ploy, to hope to capture the attention of visitors at the price of the inhabitants? Can the new district live up to it's expectation and can it consistently offer inhabitants and visitors reasons for staying? There are plenty of case studies of either example and they should be paid careful attention before a neighborhood or community recreates itself (especially when surrounded by like branded districts) as to what the actual INTENT of the branding is.
No comments:
Post a Comment